Tue 10 Feb, 2009
Red Envelopes for Life
7:39 am Comments (104) Filed under: Life and ChoicesTags: Abortion, Red Envelopes For Life
The new U.S. administration is on the verge of opening doors for more legalized abortions. The so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” would take choice away from state and local jurisdictions regarding abortion law.
We can all send President Obama a simple but powerful message with a Red Envelope for Life. Pass it along!
And if making a real difference in our culture is what you dream of, read on…
Thanks so much for posting this. I am the guy who sent the first red envelope email, and God has truly amazed me by crossing every denominational barrier and every region of the country in a matter of a few weeks.
Thank you for getting it started! I hope this helps.
This is an immoral campaign. I hope it fails.
That’s quite an absolutist position! I know you don’t take the relativistic stance some atheists around here take, but still…
lets ask the question:
why is a living thing housed inside a woman considered to be her private property until it is expelled?
j., that’s a poorly stated question. Most living things in or on a person’s body are regarded as belonging to the person, and belonging to the person in a rather intimate way.
This was a brilliant idea. Even if you agree with Obama’s position on abortion, I don’t see how you can’t admire the cleverness of this idea. I don’t get how it’s immoral.
Let me get this straight: exercising your freedom of speech is immoral, but ripping a tiny baby into bloody pieces is not immoral. Somebody needs a moral compass.
I don’t know about the morality of abortion, but it seems that a thinking Christian could come to the conclusion that abortion is presumably in the best interests of the unborn baby. Here’s the direction such an argument might take:
(1) God sends some people to Hell.
(2) Hell is a place of eternal suffering.
(3) God presumably does not send unborn babies to Hell.
(4) Therefore, abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn.
This has been called “The Loving Parent Argument”–although it certainly does not show that loving parents must abort their unborn, or that doing so is even morally permissible.
For a “thinking Christian” to come to that conclusion, such “thinking” would have to exclude one of the most pertinent of all sources of information: the Ten Commandments. Leaving out highly pertinent information is not such a great idea, is it?
Tom, I’m assuming that your 8:11 post above refers to ct’s 5:18 post. Given that, how does any consideration of the Ten Commandments change the logic of ct’s point?
@8 CT.
… you seem to be missing something (apart from the commandments). God created us to have life, and to know him. Even the NT says “God is God of the living, not the dead.” Christians obsess over life, not death (indeed, Christianity itself is hinged on the resurrection, not the death of Christ. No resurrection = no point).
Besides, this denies the entire attitude of the Bible towards people having a soul, etc: “Lord, you knew me before I was born”; “Lord, you knit me together in my mother’s womb”, etc. We are not just accidents of biology, but planned and known!
@10. “Thou shalt not kill” is generally take to mean “don’t kill”…
Paul,
It doesn’t change the “logic” of ct’s point, if by “logic” you mean, drawing a valid conclusion from a set of premises. Validity, in logic, refers to whether a conclusion follows, or can be inferred, in a formal sense. A deduction is true if it follows (a) valid logic drawn from (b) true and adequate premises.
So what I wrote has nothing to do with the formal logic of ct’s point, but it certainly affects the truth of ct’s point, however.
You can draw up any set of premises you wish and draw a logically valid conclusion from those premises. If your premises are false, however, or if they are relevantly incomplete (as in this case), then your valid conclusion is not going to be a true conclusion.
There are probably some weaknesses in the formal logic of ct’s point as well, but I addressed the most obvious problem and left it at that.
Tom Gilson and Tristan Ingle,
I’m thinking that Paul has raised a good question (however uncharitably one tries to construe it). If we add the Ten Commandments as premise “3.1″, how is that premise going to be relevant?
Another way to say this is that the conclusion of the loving parent argument (and each of its premises) seems to be compatible with the Ten Commandments. The same goes for everything else Tristan Ingle has said.
Help us out: how are the observations you two are raising relevant to the loving parent argument itself?
Tom, can you be specific?
1. Which additional premise from the Ten C. is the crucial one(s) that should be added to ct’s and which would change his conclusion, and
2. How does that premise invalidate ct’s conclusion?
The additional premise is the command, “You shall not kill (commit murder).”
Since that’s a command from God, the conclusion that killing a child could be a good thing is overridden. It is never a good thing to take it as a principle that we have a better idea than God about something as crucial as this.
Or are we going to say to God, “Look God, I know you said not to kill the innocent for our own convenience, and you never came close to suggesting that we kill them for the sake of their eternal destiny; but you’re rather confused on that, don’t you see? We’re a little smarter, and we’ve got it figured out. Don’t you realize, God, that it’s better if we do kill?” Perish the thought in eternal flames!
@ct:
I have to ask if you’re being serious about this. There’s a part of me that can’t believe this is even being discussed, especially the second time around (your 9:38 am comment).
If you’re making your argument based on what the Bible says (which you are, up to a point), why not also include God’s expressed will regarding murder? For someone to make a supposedly biblical argument in favor of wantonly killing the innocent—well, that really leaves me astonished. If one is trying to sort out what the Bible has to say on a topic, one ought not to be asking, “If we add the Ten Commandments as premise “3.1″, how is that premise going to be relevant?” The Ten Commandments are relevant, don’t you think?
I have trouble believing you’re serious about this question. If you are, please help me see what you mean, because right now it doesn’t seem that way.
Tom Gilson, I am quite serious. Moreover, it seems that you’ve misread the loving parent argument. The argument merely concludes that abortion is presumably in the unborn baby’s best interest. Your comments seem to be addressed to some other argument, one which concludes “therefore, we should wantonly kill the unborn.” I can agree: that would be hard to take seriously.
You ask, “The Ten Commandments are relevant, don’t you think?” The question, of course, is whether or not they are relevant to the loving parent argument.
Tom, you answered my question very specifically, thank you. The additional premise does call ct’s conclusion into question.
But the whole thing still doesn’t make any sense. A living person has the risk of not going to heaven because of personal decisions but the unborn baby doesn’t. Eternity literally hangs in the balance, but merely because of an accident of (un-)birth. That’s an infinitely capricious system.
Paul, presuming your premise to be true, how is it possibly capricious? Let alone infinitely?
Is it capricious to send criminals to jail because of their decisions and not infants? Your rejoinders don’t even make any sense.
Since you lament again and again the possibility of eternal punishment why don’t you face the fact that your complaints and protestations aren’t going to do you a bit of good? You aren’t going to argue Hell away and ignoring or denying the problem won’t solve it. Only one thing will and that is to put your faith in our Redeemer and Saviour who loves YOU.
“Since that’s a command from God, the conclusion that killing a child could be a good thing is overridden.”
Please note, the loving parent argument (LPA) doesn’t conclude that, overall, killing a child is a good thing. The question whether something is a “good thing” and whether something is in a particular person’s best interest are quite distinct. It may be a good thing that God condemns a particular sinner to Hell (perhaps the “balance of justice” is restored–which is itself an overriding good). This does not entail that it is in the best interest of any particular person to go to Hell.
@ct:
I guess the question that comes to my mind instead is, “To what is the so-called ‘Loving Parent Argument’ relevant?”
Tom Gilson, for your last question, begin by considering this: are the interests of the unborn relevant? (I believe I stand with the majority in supposing that the interests of the unborn are relevant.)
@ct:
I guess I don’t want to get into a long give-and-take on this, ct. Are the interests of the unborn relevant? Of course. Does God want us to kill them? Of course not. So we have our answer to the question, “Should we kill the unborn in their own interest?” And I can’t think of why it’s worth taking the time to explore this any further.
If you have a direct answer, I would be interested to know it, but I really don’t want to take the time to pursue it dialectically.
Tom Gilson,
You write, “Are the interests of the unborn relevant? Of course.”
If you accept the premises of the LPA, you have good reasons to think that abortion is in the best interests of the unborn. Now, since you concede that interests of the unborn are relevant, it would be curious if you insisted that the LPA wasn’t worth your careful consideration. It would be curious for you dismiss the LPA without having grounds for doing so.
You ask, “Should we kill the unborn in their own interest?” Here you are in danger of confusing the discussion by trying to have us think about too many questions at once. We can fruitfully discuss the question whether abortion is in the best interest of the unborn prior to considering the practical implications of such a thesis. The exact practical implications are extremely complicated, and would involve us in all kinds of considerations (the Ten Commandments, the “sanctity of life,” issues of paternalism, interference God’s designs, prioritization &c).
Since, however, you are so eager to jump ahead, here’s my answer: we (you and I) most certainly should not kill the unborn. (Even if we rightly concluded that it is in the best interests for someone else’s kid to get spanked, this doesn’t license you or me to begin spanking.)
This, of course, does not at all mean that it would be unimportant for us to know whether abortion is in the best interests of the unborn. For one thing, there are a lot of sinful problems in this world the effects of which are most decidedly not in the best interests of their most immediate and significant victims. Resources given to fight abortion are resources not given to combat these other problems. The conclusion of the LPA is presumably relevant for these considerations of priority. (I’ve heard of some Christians who make abortion the sole issue when it comes time to vote. This is just the extreme.)
I’m gratified to know you don’t favor killing the unborn, ct. But the whole argument you’re presenting is strange, to say the least. Consider these premises:
1. Brightly colored aluminum foil that I buy at the local dollar store floats toward the sky when I let go of it.
2. Brightly colored aluminum foil that I buy at the grocery store floats toward the sky when I let go of it.
Therefore,
3. Brightly colored aluminum foil is not subject to gravity.
Oh, I left out a pertinent fact: that brightly colored aluminum foil is in the shape of a balloon, and filled with helium.
Now, what’s the point of presenting an argument that leaves out such pertinent information? Not worth wasting time on.
Now all you have to do is show that the loving parent argument leaves out a “pertinent fact”!
Feb. 12, 8:11 pm.
Enough of this game now. Really.
Tom Gilson, you are surely more intelligent than you are letting on here. You again appeal to Ten Commandments!
God says, “Thou shall not kill.” This is entirely compatible with the conclusion that abortion is presumably in the best interests of the unborn baby. (Are the Ten Commandments pertinent in some other way?)
I’m beginning to suspect that you’d rather give up thinking than to give up a certain piece of cultural dogma to which you (and many other Christians) have somehow become committed. You’d rather refuse to think about the interests of the unborn babies in the light of scripture than to allow the idea that abortion is not a purely evil practice, irredeemable even for its innocent, unborn victims.
@ct:
Your LPA is an argument based on what you posture as a biblical soteriology (doctrine of salvation). If you’re going to present a biblical argument, then present a biblical argument, not a half-biblical argument in which you pick and choose which part of the Bible you think applies.
I could present a half-biblical argument in favor of any half-baked arbitrary idea anybody could concoct in their imagination. All I would have to do is pick and choose a verse here and a verse there, out of context of the whole. And what would I prove thereby? That I can play a game, one with no connection to reality.
Honestly, I have more regard for those who reject the Bible and support abortion based on some other philosophy, than for someone who would try to support abortion based on such an empty attempt at biblical grounds.
As to your last sentence: you make it appear that what is purely evil cannot be redeemable for its victims, as if the two are completely mutually exclusive. This is not biblical either. Any murder is evil. The person who commits such evil is subject to God’s judgment for it. The victim may experience redemption, but that is the victim’s experience, not the perpetrator’s experience. And it is the perpetrator’s decision, not the victim’s (perhaps ultimately redeemed) experience, that makes the act evil.
Are you suggesting that we promote evil so that good may come? Read Romans 6.
Tom Gilson, there is a lot of passion and accusation in your last reply, but I don’t see any grounds.
Your first three paragraphs depend on the claim that the loving parent argument overlooks some relevant teachings of the Bible. Please specify.
Regarding your fourth paragraph, I simply mean to contrast “purely evil” actions with actions that are in the best interest of those whom they most directly and significantly affect. Furthermore, it is completely compatible with the LPA to suppose that abortion is evil–even though it is in the best interests of the unborn.
As for your closing question, neither I nor the LPA suggest that we should promote evil that good may come.
I can see how some of these things might upset you–if you are misinterpreting the LPA in these ways and running on to these hasty conclusions. May reason prevail as we consider the interests of the unborn in the light of scripture.
edit …
never mind
@ct:
I have specified. More than once. I’m getting rather tired of repeating what I have specified. You have not explained what has been wrong with what I have specified, other than to roll your rhetorical eyes at the Ten Commandments for some unstated reason—as if we are to regard them as irrelevant to a biblical discussion!?
It is rather tiresome that you ask me to repeat what I have specified, when you have not explained what was lacking the first several times. Shall I just say it again? Would that be of any additional help?
If you think we are to disregard the Ten Commandments, then (as I intimated last time) at least be honest and throw out the whole Bible with them! I would prefer you be consistent, at least.
Then it seems as if the LPA is an argument in favor of committing an acknowledged evil. Or at least you have not denied that you think abortion is evil.
If you think it’s evil, what is this mind game you’re playing? If you don’t think it’s evil, then what do you think?
You’re back to telling God he’s been confused all along, and that if he had been smarter he would have told us to kill the unborn. And the infants, too—the same argument applies to them. And the mentally disabled. Kill them all, as we let our “reason prevail as we consider [their] interests in the light of scripture.”
And you wonder why I’m showing some feelings on this topic?
If this discussion doesn’t make some progress next time around—for example, by your responding with more than a sneer toward my referring to the commandment not to murder—then I’ll cut it off. This is not a place for the kind of game I perceive you are playing. If you’re not playing a game, then please explain more clearly why you’re pushing this argument.
And if your only point is that we shouldn’t be one-issue voters, you may consider that point to have been made already. I agree. There are many sorts of evil to shun. Abortion is one of them, and there are others besides.
There are many sorts of good to pursue. The salvation of the unborn through their violent and untimely death, in what should be the safety of the womb, is not one of them.
Tom Gilson, after asking you to specify the pertinent parts of scripture that the loving parent argument overlooks, you write: “I have specified. More than once. I’m getting rather tired of repeating what I have specified. You have not explained what has been wrong with what I have specified, other than to roll your rhetorical eyes at the Ten Commandments for some unstated reason—as if we are to regard them as irrelevant to a biblical discussion!?”
The most charitable way that I can interpret your statement here (and the paragraphs that immediately follow) is to suppose that you’ve mistakenly overlooked my comments #13 and #28 (second paragraph). If you have read these posts, then I would say that you are mistakenly thinking that by emphatically repeating a bad argument you can make a good argument go away. (Or: what do you find insufficient in the replies I have given in comments 13 and 28?)
You write, “Then it seems as if the LPA is an argument in favor of committing an acknowledged evil….You’re back to telling God he’s been confused all along, and that if he had been smarter he would have told us to kill the unborn.””
Please note (once again!): the LPA doesn’t recommend doing anything. The LPA merely concludes that abortion is presumably in the best interest in the unborn baby. As I have pointed out, the practical implications of the LPA are quite another matter (although, at your request (ultimatum?), I have addressed some of these as well).
You ask, “If you’re not playing a game, then please explain more clearly why you’re pushing this argument.”
For this, please recall what I’ve stated in my comment #24. We both agree that the interests of unborn babies are quite important for us to consider. I think we both agree that it would be significant to learn that abortion is in the best interest those whom it most directly and significantly affects. This is true even if abortion is a sinful practice. And here is one way to understand why. There are a multitude of different kinds of sinful practices in the world that Christians rightly believe that they should combat. Insofar as Churches and individual Christians must be good stewards with their time and resources, it would be irresponsible not to think about priorities. It would be a mistake to assume that there is an equal urgency in combating every kind of sinful practice. Consider an example. Jesus says that it is a sin to commit adultery in one’s heart. Undoubtedly this occurs when a man “pleasures himself” from time to time. It is also a sin to traffic children for sex trade. It would presumably be a mistake, however, to prioritize the goal of stopping a man from masturbating above stopping a man from trafficking children in the sex trade. The fact that the latter sin has real victims (beyond the perpetrator) seems to be relevant. Likewise, it would be relevant to know that abortion has no real victim (in the sense that abortion is in the best interest of those whom it most directly and significantly affects).
I understand that this is an emotional topic. However, it is because of the seriousness of this topic that we need to clear our heads and lean on the strength of reason. This is one place in particular that we need thinking Christians. Since others are looking to you as a model in this regard, please try to bring to this issue the high quality of thinking that I’ve seen you demonstrate elsewhere.
@ct:
What’s wrong with your arguents in #13 and #28 is that what they are discussing is either plainly trivial (“What does God say about X, if we ignore some of what God says about X?”) or obviously false (“major parts of God’s word are irrelevant to LPA, so from God’s word we can conclude that LPA is valid”).
This is not the first time I have said this. In fact, “If you have read these posts, then I would say that you are mistakenly thinking that by emphatically repeating a bad argument you can make a good argument go away. (Or: what do you find insufficient in the replies I have given in all the comments in which I have pointed out that ‘you shall not murder’ is relevant?”)
One of my most serious complaints (#21) is that you have not shown what makes this whole crazy discussion relevant. From a biblical perspective it’s either trivial or false. A person who takes a non-biblical perspective will take it as either trivial or false.
False. It does not take into account all of the relevant information; or else it tells God we’re smarter than he is.
Read Romans 6 (again).
You go on to discuss levels of damage of various kinds of sin and evil. This is the “lesser evil” discussion. You are introducing it now for the first time, so perhaps you are finally showing how this discussion might be relevant to something. Still, to conclude from the LPA that abortion is in the best interests of the victim is exactly equivalent to saying that infanticide (probably up to age 18 months at least) is in the best interests of the baby. It’s crazy nonsense. If you insert crazy nonsense into a weighted comparison of lesser evils, you’ll get crazy nonsense out of your comparison.
Consider the case of the woman whose life is actually, seriously, and objectively at risk if she carries her baby to full term. (These cases are less common than some believe, but they do happen.) Some would say that to end her pregancy early may be morally permissible, just as killing in self-defense may be morally permissible. I think that would be a hard decision, and I think heroic efforts ought to be undertaken to save the baby in such a case. But note that if in this case the mother lives and the baby dies, and if some conclude there was no moral blame to be attached to the decision, they do not conclude that on the basis of how good it was for the baby. If I kill a house invader in self-defense, and I’m held not guilty for murder, the court does not say, “Not guilty by reason of all the good he did for the man he killed!”
I refuse to be dispassionate about infanticide or abortion. I refuse to accept that being a thinking Christian means trying to out-think God. A thinking Christian does not run from reality or from the facts at hand, one of which is that God has clearly stated “you shall not murder.” A thinking Christian need not play thought games such as, “let’s suppose we can ignore part of what God said, and let’s think of what the rest of his word would mean in that case.”
@ct:
I wrote earlier that if the quality of this discussion did not improve I was going to cut it off. Of course you haven’t violated standards of courtesy, the kind of thing for which commenters usually get banned, so I’m not intending to do that at all. I’m going to cut off this discussion another way: I’m going to ignore it. You may count on me not answering you any further, except that if necessary (to avoid leaving an impression I agree with you, if you continue to repeat what you’re saying) I may point other readers back to this answer and others I have already made
Tom Gilson, you are in the most curious of situations here. The loving parent argument concludes that abortion is presumably in the best interests of the unborn. On the one hand, you want to vigorously deny this conclusion, as if it is a matter evil and the violation of the Ten Commandments. On the other hand, you want to deny the conclusion by dismissing it as irrelevant. A bit of a tension here, no?
If it is irrelevant that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn baby, then you should be able to affirm the LPA, accept its conclusion, but deny its practical significance. Ordinarily, a statement is not falsified by its having no implications for decision making.
That is, you should be saying something like this: “True, abortion is in the best interests of the unborn, but this shouldn’t in any way affect how we think about these issues. After all, God says ‘thou shall not kill’”. (I would only add: just like He says “don’t commit adultery in your heart!)
Hi ct,
How do you, or the abortion provider, or the aborting mother, determine which babies are destined to grow up, reject Jesus as their Savior and end up in Hell such that killing them will avoid this and send them to Heaven?
And how do you know which were going to grow up to serve their Lord and would have not only gone to Heaven, but been rewarded in Heaven, heard their Father say “well done, my good and faithful servant” and would have found that because they were faithful with the few things entrusted to them they will now have great things entrusted to them in eternity? Since aborting them would rob them of this reward it is not in their best interests. HOw do you avoid aborting these ones?
Charlie, I appreciate your comment. Not only is it directly relevant to the LPA itself, it also raises the right sorts of considerations. That is, you raise considerations relevant to the interests of the unborn baby in the light of eternity. All too often pro-life Christians neglect these aspects of their faith, making themselves vulnerable to the errors of shortsightedness, unbelief and worldliness, endorsing the sentiments of the culture around them rather than testing all things in the light of scripture.
You rightly notice that in focusing on the avoidance of eternal suffering in Hell the LPA neglects the possibility of accruing eternal rewards in Heaven. The consideration you raise, therefore, is that although the aborted fetus escapes the risk of eternal punishment, it also loses the possibility of increased heavenly rewards. Assuming this is right, we should consider what this implies for the claim that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn.
The relevant question would seem to be this: from the unborn baby’s point of view, is it just as bad to lose the chance for increasing one’s heavenly reward as it is to risk suffering eternally in Hell? How are we to think about this? We can begin by simply comparing what stands to be gained with what stands to be lost. How are we imagining Heaven if we are supposing that gaining a better position there is worth risking not being there at all and instead suffering for all eternity in Hell? Are we imagining that it would be so bad for a soul in Heaven to lack the additional rewards that some in Heaven are in such deep regret that they’d rather risk not being there at all? Could some souls in Heaven be thinking: “My spot here in Heaven really sucks…I’d be willing to risk leaving this place forever and going to Hell in order to get more prizes”?
If this seems implausible, then we have a prima facie reason for maintaining that it is still in the best interest of the unborn to avoid the risk of Hell even if this means forfeiting the chance to accrue even bigger prizes in heaven.
CT,
I’ve not had the chance to read the above in great depth yet, so forgive me if this has been brought up.
Given what you seem to be saying about the LPA, please explain why it shouldn’t lead to the attitude that the best thing that can happen to a baby is to be aborted. Your comment to Charlie raised this question for me.
That is, what is your understanding of this argument, or your own statements, by which you can consistently reject the argument that killing every child before birth would actually be a good thing. It seems to me that if I take your logic seriously, then a truly loving parent will always abort to ensure that the child will wind up in heaven.
Obviously, you need to explain how that either does or does not jive with scriptures, and how consistent your actual position is to scriptural directives. I think it’s a bit glib to say that pro-lifers are being “short-sighted” by making the kind of argument you are.
You seemed to shrug the always-abort idea off without explanation earlier, and other comments you have made suggest that you’re parsing a difference between “moral” actions and actions that are “good for person x”, but I’m not sure how you’re doing either one as it pertains to the question at hand.
Okay, against my better judgment, I’ll bite one last time.
Falsely concludes, because it is based on an incomplete of premises, as already noted several times. You still haven’t said what’s wrong with that answer, you just keep repeating yourself.
Delete “as if,” and you have that correct.
You misread me. I did not say I dismiss the conclusion as irrelevant. I said this:
Either (a) one takes the Bible as one’s source, in which a full-context approach leads one to the conclusion that abortion is evil, OR
(b) One does not take the Bible as one’s source, in which case the LPA, which draws its premises from the Bible, is irrelevant (in the mind of the person who does not take the Bible as one’s source).
None whatsoever. I take position (a) and reject position (b). No tension there at all. You are the one who ought to be feeling tension, for you are stuck somewhere between (a) and (b).
I remain astonished that you do not see this.
It is not irrelevant that abortion is in the best interest of the baby, because it is not in the best interest of the baby. To conclude that it is in the best interest of the baby is (for the third time I tell you this) to conclude that we can outsmart God on this point.
I think that in a battle of wits between God and either you or me, that we would be more than outnumbered, don’t you? But you have never responded to that point, either.
Agreed. See the dilemma of (a) and (b) above. I have chosen (a), in which the statement is falsified by its being false in God’s view. Do you choose (a) or (b)? Or do you choose (c), that you are going to take the Bible as your source, but you’re going to be smarter than God is on the matter of abortion? And smarter than God on the matter of infanticide, which follows from your logic as surely as your abortion conclusion? Which you have not responded to either.
No, I should not conclude abortion is in the best interests of the unborn, because I don’t think there is a complete and true set of premises which, taken as a whole, leads validly to that conclusion. If there were such a set of premises, then I would agree with the second half of what you said in that last quoted portion. I’ll grant you that much.
But I don’t think that set of premises exists, unless you want to pick and choose which ones you want to include. As I said (and you have not responded to), it’s possible to defend any cockamamie idea you want to defend, just by cherry-picking portions of the Bible that seem to support it, out of context. But why would anyone want to employ that approach?
ct, if you are a believer in the Bible, I implore you to take the whole Bible as your context—for your own good. You said to Charlie,
Why not begin by consulting what the whole word of God has to say on the subject?
Is that optional in your mind, too?
Charlie, you can take it from here if you want. I’m outta here for real now. Too many points ct won’t respond to, no matter how hard I try.
Tom wrote:
We’ve all been there!
MedicineMan,
Thank you for weighing in. The LPA concludes that abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn. That is, in terms of the interests of unborn baby, it is better to be aborted than not to be aborted. Of course, the best thing would be for the baby to grow up, do great works for the glory of God, and then to go to an eternal reward in Heaven with extra credit and all. In a gambling situation, the best outcome would be for me to win the jackpot, but this does not mean that it is in my best interest to gamble.
Since the scriptures say “Thou shall not kill,” the Christian can quite reasonably conclude that it is nevertheless wrong/impermissible to kill the unborn. This is in no way at odds with the claim that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn. That is, an act can be morally wrong even if it is in the best interest of those whom it most directly and significantly affects (examples of this are quite easy to produce). Tom Gilson’s opposition to the LPA seems to rest on a complete failure to recognize this. This is why, as far as I can see, Mr. Gilson continues to mistakenly insist that the Ten Commandments show that the LPA doesn’t work.
Suppose that you discover that, on a particular occasion, stealing a box of chocolates from a certain person would be in that person’s best interest. Does this automatically mean that you should steal from that person? Presumably not. Presumably it doesn’t even mean that it is permissible for you to steal the box of chocolates. Thus, we can say that, though it is in the “victim’s” best interest for you to steal her box of chocolates, it would still be morally wrong for you to do so.
Again, the loving parent argument only concludes that abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn. What to do with this conclusion is quite another matter.
I should also add: if anyone following this thread can find any merit in the considerations Mr. Gilson has raised, I’d love to hear a paraphrase of them. I’d be happy to learn that I have overlooked something in the passionate replies of our good host.
Hi ct,
Thanks for your response.
You are not following your own rules and this imagination is not at all necessary to dismiss your case. This is a matter of ‘ good, better and best ‘.
You said we are to consider only what is in the best interest of the unborn baby and it is clearly not in the best interest of the baby to forfeit his Heavenly rewards by losing the opportunity to obey and please His Heavenly Father. It is in his best interest to attain those rewards.
You admit this much to Medicine Man.
No, we do not have this reason. If you select an infant who would have gone to Heaven to great reward and you remove the great reward you have not done what is in his best interest. Neither is there any risk of Hell for the infant going to Heaven. God knows which is which and no human can. Your conundrum has failed by its own rules.
You said also to Medicine Man:
There is no gamble and adding an additional metaphor here only muddies the waters further.
You have no idea if the infant aborted was to have gone to Heaven to Hell, nor whether or not he was going to Heaven to increased reward or not. Therefore, in eternal matters you have no idea what is in his best interests, therefore the LPA can draw no conclusion whatsoever.
Don’t you admit it here as well?
How can it conclude a presumption?
You said:
You are restating Pascal’s Wager to fair approximation but it only applies to deciding agents.
And Tom has aptly replied:
===
Hi Tom,
You have made the case perfectly from the get-go. I think I have now added to that by showing that even by limiting his argument merely to ct’s own standards it doesn’t even hold up to the slightest scrutiny.
Charlie, we seem to be in danger of talking past each other. Let’s first try to gain some agreement on an extremely simplified case. We’ll build up from there. We start this way to gain some common ground, so that we might have a fruitful discussion.
Picture yourself as a parent, considering what is in the best interest of your child. You must decide between two options:
Option One: by sending your child through door A, your child will have a chance to win, by contest, the bicycle of her dreams. However, she will also run the very real risk of being crippled for life, confined to a wheelchair and badly brain damaged.
Option Two: by sending your child through door B, she does not get the opportunity to win the bicycle of her dreams, but she also avoids the very real risk of the crippled for life, &c. (She must settle with a second rate bicycle.)
Would you agree with me that, by picking Option Two rather than Option One, you act in your child’s best interest?
Thank you, Charlie (Medicine Man, too). You have my complete support if you decide that starting from “an extremely simplified case” has you starting so far from reality that it’s not worth it.
I’m beginning to suspect that Tom Gilson has a keen interest in seeing this discussion stop. It is not enough, it seems, for him to withhold his own engagement.
What’s striking are the reasons that Mr. Gilson, an otherwise decent thinker, gives for dismissing this discussion. Let’s consider Mr. Gilson’s primary and oft-repeated reason for opposing the loving parent argument. Essentially, he asserts that the following two claims are in conflict.
(a) Abortion is presumably in the unborn baby’s best interest. [the conclusion of the LPA]
(b) God commands, “Thou shall not kill.” [from the Ten Commandments]
However, and despite repeated requests and opportunities, Mr. Gilson has entirely failed to explain how these two claims are in conflict.
And there is good reason for thinking that the claims are not in conflict. Though we might reasonably conclude from (b) that abortion is wrong/impermissible, this doesn’t at all show that abortion is not in the unborn baby’s best interests. After all, the mere fact that some action is in the best interest of someone obviously does not mean that the action is not wrong. An action can be in someone’s best interest and still be morally wrong. One reason the action may still be wrong is because God has outlawed that action. Thus, the proponent of the LPA can entirely accept the authority of the Ten Commandments and still uphold the conclusion that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn.
I find it increasingly difficult to see how Mr. Gilson can be approaching this conversation in good faith. It is difficult not to suspect Mr. Gilson of prior commitments which do not allow him to question a piece of cultural dogma, which in the light of scripture has very little to do with the interests of the unborn.
(By the way, Mr. Gilson: you need to first let my 7:46 p.m. comment past your censorship if your 7:52 p.m. post is to make sense to the others.)
Let the reader scroll upward on the page and note what has been written in bold font in earlier comments.
I do have an interest in ending this discussion, which is just this, and nothing else: that in my mind it’s pretty silly. (I’m not feeling threatened by it, if that’s what you’re implying, ct.) But you all are welcome to continue as long as you care to do so.
CT,
If I understand you, you’re “only” saying that the LPA argues that it’s in a child’s best interests to be aborted, but that (the LPA) does not make the abortion moral.
That leads me, rather quickly, to what I think Tom was getting at, and what you seem so reluctant to deal with: so what? Are you therefore arguing for abortion, or against it, on the basis of the LPA (or against it)?
I’ve not been in this line of conversation nearly as long as Tom, and I’m already feeling a sense of futility just by extrapolating where this is going.
You seem to be saying that abortion can be immoral even if it’s in “the best interests” (note the purposeful quotes) of the baby. So what? Are you advocating that we should (or that the Bible does) support or justify a Biblically immoral practice, or are you advocating that we ignore the Bible in favor of naked theoretical pragmatism? You must be saying one or the other in order for this to make any sense.
The third option is that you support neither, but are merely making a gigantic effort to consider a point that is totally irrelevant. It’s like arguing that Christians won’t consider the possibility that there are pink spotted donuts orbiting the rings of the third planet of Sirius. We really need to consider the PSDORTPS, why do we keep talking about the Bible, what about the PSDORTPS, let’s talk about the PSDORTPS – So what?
Tom’s basically arguing that what the LPA says is irrelevant to the question of the morality (/justification / supportability / acceptability) of abortion. I think you’re confusing Tom’s justified insistence that the LPA does not override the Ten Commandments in moral authority with a “complete failure to recognize” that the LPA is not a “moral” argument, and you can’t override God’s moral edicts with a PSDORTPS-type argument.
Tom’s saying that the primary concern here is moral, not pragmatic; Biblical, not utilitarian, so the LPA is a non-issue for the Christian. The LPA is not a reasonable, accurate, or coherent extrapolation of Biblical thought, so one either takes the Bible seriously (and discards the LPA) or rejects the Bible (and discards the LPA anyway).
You might disagree, but you’re not giving any reasons for a person to take the LPA seriously. As a result, I (and Tom, I suspect) are left with only one question: so what?
ct,
X) Driving at 55 miles per hour is better for my gas mileage than driving 25 miles per hour. I have a right to pursuit of happiness (which includes cheap travel).
Y) The state has set a clear speed limit on Mulberry Lane of 25 miles per hour.
Are these compatible, or not? The real answer, when considering whether or not to speed on Mulberry is who cares? Their interaction is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not I should speed…
…unless you reject the authority of the local government. So, it’s natural for a person reading my X and Y to wonder why I make so much noise asking people to consider it.
Tom gave you my answer: they’re irrelevant to those who accept the local government’s authority. “Don’t speed” is the reasonable conclusion for the law-abider, regardless of the pragmatism of 25 mph vs 55 mph. You cannot accept A as a superior justification for your speed than B unless you reject the local law.
The “MPH” argument is a non-starter for a legitimate law-abider. The LPA is a non-starter for a legitimate Bible-believer. As I said, you keep asking Tom to do that which he keeps explaining is pointless: defend or argue an irrelevancy. Unless you’d like to start giving me reasons why you accept or reject the PSDORTPS, please give me the so what.
Tom Gilson, I see the bold font and I read your remarks: “based on an incomplete [set] of premises….a “battle of wits with God”…. “infanticide… follows from your logic”….”cherry-picking portions of the Bible.”
Can an intelligent person honestly believe that these are adequate replies–that any of these assertions (and please do read them in context) show that there is any conflict between the following two claims:
(a) Abortion is presumably in the unborn baby’s best interest.
(b) God commands, “Thou shall not kill.”
Mr. Gilson, do you really expect an intelligent and critical reader to believe that you are being sincere and thoughtful? What does this imply about your regard for the intelligence and objectivity of your readers? I, for one, can see right through this.
Hi ct,
Yes, I agree that in your example you are acting in the child’s best interests, but this is irrelevant to your LPA challenge.
In your cartoon example you have too many assumptions to make a valid comparison. For one, you are the person in charge and responsible for your child’s fate in the door One, door Two example. Neither you, the abortion provider nor the aborting parent is in charge or responsible for the eternal fate of the aborted baby as is the parent for the immediate temporal health of their child.
Two, when we extend your scenario nobody would take the necessarily oppressive actions required to keep this child from ever facing the very real danger of such an injury as being in her best interests. Call this the Gilded Cage Argument.
Three, you are assuming access to facts that you cannot have in the real-life scenario. Yes, in your thought experiment you get to assume the knowledge of the risk of the brain-damage scenario, but you have no such knowledge and no assumption of such in the Heaven/Hell scenario. You merely reason from your own ignorance in such a case and ignore God’s sovereignty. If you are going to claim to argue Biblically then you must contend with the Bible, and God has distinctly told us that He will have mercy upon whom He has mercy – their eternal fates are not, and never will be, in our hands.
Let’s try something else, even simpler than your example. Picture yourself as a baby who will grow up to be a faithful Christian who will love and obey his Creator Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Picture yourself capable of making that decision (a factor necessarily taken into account in “best interest” cases) for yourself in due time. Picture yourself living a life, as God has intended is best, being evidenced by the fact that God did not merely populate Heaven with created souls but has given us to live lives on Earth wherein we grow in our knowledge, learn about Him, decide upon our fates and learn to love Him. Picture yourself losing the opportunity to do any of this and to achieve your potential to stand before Him at His Mercy Seat and hear His commendation because somebody- immorally and without the right – chose to take away your life. Regardless of their intentions, acting in their ignorance and presumptions they have robbed you of the chance and taken away best.
Do you think they acted in your best interests? Or only in their (at best) false view of them?
Or go the other way. Picture yourself as an atheist who does not believe there is a God, a Heaven or a Hell.
Now picture somebody killing you as a baby to save you from a Hell that doesn’t exist.
Now, as an atheist, picture yourself dead in the grave feeding worms and never having enjoyed a single thing on Earth.
Did they act in your best interests?
Here’s another syllogism to refute yours:
1) God has determined that we live for a time on Earth, learn to depend upon Him, exercise our faith, grow spiritually, store up treasures in Heaven and come before Him in the end to be judged for our lives on Earth.
2) God is all knowing and all good.
Conclusion;
3) It is in our best interests to live our lives as given to us by the Grace of God and fulfill His ordained plans for our lives.
As per your other comments:
Do you really think you came here for fruitful conversation, do you think this LPA lends itself to that, and do you think your attitude has promoted it?
ct,
You might over-estimate your x-ray vision.
I for one see these as completely adequate replies – judge my intelligence as you will.
The Sovereign Creator and Judge of the universe has told us “Thou shalt not murder”.
How can one arrogate to claim to know all of the reasons why He has so decreed and determine that it is completely arbitrary as regards the best interests of the victim? How is it not reasonable to at least conclude that it is presumably in the best interest of the victim not to murder him?
MedicineMan,
You do well to articulate a specific response. That response comes in two parts:
(i) The LPA is irrelevant the question of the morality of abortion.
(ii) Therefore, the LPA is irrelevant.
Regarding (i), you’ll notice that from my very first post on this topic (#8) I acknowledge that there is no close or obvious connection between the LPA and the issue of morality. I acknowledge that abortion can at once both be immoral/sinful/contrary to God’s law and be in the best interest of the unborn. With you perhaps, I had been misled by some of Tom Gilson’s comments to think that he was also aware of this very point. You’ll notice, however, that he vigorously denies the conclusion of the LPA itself, and he even thinks that the conclusion of the LPA is incompatible with the Ten Commandments. (For this, see my comment #37 and Mr. Gilson’s reply in #41.)
Regarding (ii), please read the 2nd to last paragraph of my comment #34. (Also, if it really were irrelevant that abortion is in the best interests of the unborn, would there by so much opposition to the LPA. Do you accept that abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn?)
Excellent comments from both Charlie and MedicineMan.
Hi SteveK,
I was going to say the same with regard to both Tom’s and Medicine Man’s responses.
To be honest, I also think ct writes very well.
Charlie, Jesus says that one must not commit adultery in one’s heart. Therefore, how can “one arrogate to claim to know” that masturbation won’t cause angels to lose their wings and to make little kittens suffer? How can we presume that this is not why God outlaws committing adultery in one’s heart? This is silly. Please try to regain your objectivity in this discussion.
edit.
nevermind … again
You’re perfectly right. Christians are stuck with reason and scripture, which is what we’re trying to explore.
ct,
You’re making a lot of useless noise complaining about Tom not answering your questions, despite explanations and supporting points. Now, you’re very overtly avoiding giving me an answer to pointed, simple, and direct questions.
Do you or do you not support abortion? Do you or do you not think that we ought to follow the morality laid out in the Bible? Do you or do you not think the Bible supports abortion?
You have not answered any of these. You’re engaged in rhetorical gymnastics, and I think it’s deliberate. You aren’t defending anything, you’re just asking people to debate something that’s not only nonsensical, but which has been answered. That Tom or others won’t rehash ad nauseum for you is not a sign of error.
Tom and I both note that LPA is not a moral statement. We both say that determining whether or not abortion ought to be condoned is a moral question – making the LPA totally irrelevant. It’s also incompatible – but the irrelevancy comes first from a logical perspective (once again, consider the pink spotted donuts).
We also agree that the LPA is not a Biblically supportable argument. It does not represent Biblical teachings in an honest, complete, or accurate way.
Strictly speaking, LPA and the Ten Commandments are not compatible, because one of them is consistent with scriptural teachings, and the other is not.
Because (though not exclusively) it is not Biblically supportable, I do not accept that something God has forbidden is in anyone’s best interests, especially when referring to the murder of an unborn child. I don’t treat my beliefs like conveniently separable chunks, so I’m not willing to worm my way through the Bible looking for ways to pervert it to my purposes.
If there is a lot of opposition to the LPA, it’s likely for that very reason. Those of us who take scripture seriously have no respect for arguments that are self-serving, inaccurate, and contradictory. That would include any argument suggesting that the LPA can be derived from legitimate Biblical study.
Stop being a hypocrite, stand up like a man, and answer the questions asked of you. What is the point, CT? You’re arguing about arguing; ignoring answers to further a debate – and I’m having a hard time believing that it’s accidental. I asked specific questions, you completely and totally ignored them. I, for one, am both “intelligent and critical” enough to recognize obdurate sophistry from someone who seems smart enough to do better.
In other words, I’ve asked you to explain what possible purpose your questions serve, what end they might lead to, and you’ve absolutely refused to answer. If you can’t articulate the answers to these questions, then you have absolutely nothing useful to say, and perhaps you ought to say nothing.
To anyone who might care,
Checking over my comments I see I used Mercy Seat instead of Judgment Seat. I guess I could get away with either, but I meant the latter.
Charlie,
you write, “In your cartoon example you have too many assumptions to make a valid comparison.”
You proceed to criticize along these lines. What you miss, however, is my point in introducing the very simplified case. Here’s how I introduced that case:
As I expected, you agree that in the example you are acting in the child’s best interests. This is relevant to a claim you make:
Suppose it would have been that the child would have turned out to win the fancy bicycle while avoiding the catastrophe. Intuitively, you seemed to have realized (quite rightly, I think) that it can be in a person’s best interest to avoid a risk. This was the purpose of the hypothetical scenario.
The upshot is this: though we cannot know whether any particular fetus will go to Hell, we can sensibly argue that saving that fetus from the risk of Hell is in that fetus’s best interest–even though it might turn out that the particular fetus would not have gone to Hell anyway.
All this to clarify that one point. I think we’ve got to be prepared, however, to think slowly over these issues–if we hope to make progress.
MedicineMan,
You are running together two distinct questions:
(a) Is abortion in the best interests of the unborn?
(b) If abortion is in the best interests of the unborn, what practical implications does this have?
I prefer to begin with (a), on the assumption that there it probably would be important to know whether or not abortion is in the bests interest of the unborn. If we skip (a) to run along to (b) we find ourselves trying to settle a very complicated question all the while wondering if the inquiry is predicated on a false supposition.
Doesn’t this order of inquiry seem reasonable to you? You don’t have to accuse me of evasion or sophistry here. (After all, in order to appease folks who are given to hasty thinking, I also have articulated some of what I think with regard to (b). How can you ignore this?)
“Stand up like a man”?
Hi ct,
You missed the point. In your bicycle story you’ve given it to yourself, by the nature of your thought experiment, to know the risk of the particular child’s brain injury and you are the one responsible for the safety of the child.
Your example relies entirely upon contingencies, chance and unknown future. None of this applies in the Heaven/Hell question.
In real life we don’t know if any particular child runs any risk of going to Hell and we are not the agents responsible for her fate nor are we capable of assessing the risk.
We simply do not know the fate of aborted fetuses or of any grown person – it is to God alone to judge. And it is not a matter of caprice.
You have several other errors here which destroy your case. The first is your insistence on the term “in the best interests”. You do not and cannot know the best interests in the case of eternal salvation and all you can truly claim to be doing is acting in consideration of what you think they might be. The aborting parent may be concerned about the best interests, may wish to guard them, and may act in accordance with that presumption. But the parent cannot know the best interest of the child in this situation, cannot assess the risk and cannot, therefore, actually act in the child’s best interest.
Second, although now you are emphasizing that we can’t know if any particular fetus would have gone to Hell you were adamant to Tom that you were talking about a “particular person’s best interest”. You were very sure that you were talking about the particular best interests of a particular fetus. But the particular fetus could be losing the “best” for the “very good” by being aborted before living life and growing in Christ. Therefore, as before, it is not in the best interest of the particular fetus to be aborted.
Because you never know for which fetus it is in the best interest to be aborted (by your criteria, certainly not by mine) then the particular case falsifies your thesis.
Third and fourth …
The Gilded Cage Argument demonstrates that sheer elimination of risk is not in a person’s best interest (you can lock your child in a padded room all her life, avoid all risk of head injury, and be acting completely against her best interests) and the argument from God-given life demonstrates that life itself is in the person’s best interest.
I think you are misstating Medicine Man’s position in your (b).
I think he said that LPA is irrelevant to the practical question of abortion. I don’t believe he considers there to be a question (b).
He distinctly said that LPA has nothing to do with the morality of the issue and that he issue is determined by its morality. I don’t see where he would agree that the issue is very complicated nor that the presumption you come away from LPA with is the least bit relevant or that anything is predicated upon it.
Charlie, you write:
You are right, if by this you mean that, for any particular child, we don’t know that that child will go to Hell. But this is an odd way to understand the notion of “risk”. On such an understanding it either is or is not the case that some bad harm will befall a person. In that sense of “risk” a person faces no risks.
There is, however, an intuitive sense in which the Christian may reasonably believe that every person (perhaps everyone who ages past the “age of accountability”) runs the risk of going to Hell. This is because God sense some people to Hell (premise 1 of the LPA). If we can suppose that that God presumably does not send unborn babies to Hell (premise 3 of the LPA), then we can conclude that aborted babies presumably avoid that risk.
Don’t get me wrong: I enjoy the careful objections you raise. As long as we can be reasonable, I think we can make some progress here.
Charlie, you write:
Even if the LPA has nothing to do with the “morality” of abortion, this does not entail that the LPA should be without significance to our decision making. It would be a mistake to think that the moral permissibility of an action is the only thing worth considering about an action.
Thanks for your first and last sentences.
The intuitive, reasonable belief is a reflection of ignorance and not of the actual existence of the risk. God knows you before you are made, He knits you together in the womb and He numbers the hairs on your head. Your eternal fate is not determined by your murder.
Now add this into the mix:
Imagine again that you are an atheist with a rebellious spirit and no interest in obeying God or being in His presence. As Satan said in Paradise Lost, going to Heaven would be Hell. Would it be in your best interest to be sent into His Holy presence to be eternally tortured by It? (This is the Eastern Orthodox view of Hell)
No, it really wouldn’t. And it doesn’t matter whether or not you think this – you were attributing this concern to MM.
Charlie, you may run into some odd consequences here. If you suppose that the souls of aborted fetuses go to to heaven, then would you also maintain that every aborted fetuses would have died in saving faith had it not been aborted? That’s a pretty cool conclusion (if not a bit bizarre).
The other view of Hell will strike a lot of American evangelicals as a bit too revisionary (albeit philosophically and morally useful). Essentially, it supposes Hell to be a refuge for the sinner–an optional place one can go in order to hide from God. Alternatively, if we are simply supposing that these condemned souls are so constituted that they indeed have no alternative but to flee from God for all eternity in order to suffer in Hell, then Hell is still Hell, and it is still in one’s best interest to avoid the risk of ending up in such a condition.
I’m calling it a night.
Charlie, you’re saying it wouldn’t “be a mistake to think that the moral permissibility of an action is the only thing worth considering about an action”? Is this how you live?!
Charlie, you have got to be the most stubborn person I’ve talked to in years! I somehow still really like you though. But I’m worrying that this discussion will get us nowhere.
Goodnight!
Goodnight, CT.
As for the first of your last three comments, I can’t make heads or tails of most of it. About all I can say in response is that the counterfactual regarding aborted fetuses who are not aborted can not be considered in light of a sovereign God,
I wish! No, it turns out I am one of those sinners mentioned in the Bible – go figure. Of course you have to allow me the assumption of context. What I am saying is that if an action, like abortion, is not morally permissible then nothing else about the issue is relevant.
However, if an action, like drinking a glass of water is morally permissible, then I can consider other things, like whether or not I am thirsty. If it were not morally permissible, though, my desire and thirst would not be worth considering.
Thanks very much for your last comment. That’s incredibly gracious. As I said, you write and present your ideas well. I just don’t agree with them. I also was going to say some time ago that this discussion really can’t go anywhere. It’s still fun trying.
By the way, Give me a T! Give me an O! Give me an M!
What do you get??
With respect to this, and ct’s question whether anyone can see my responses as adequate, I simply request that other visitors read through the context before nodding their heads in agreement with ct.
Other than that, I am staying out of this discussion, as stated previously, because I have already concluded it is going nowhere. (I hope the rest of you prove me wrong on that!)
CT,
Yes, “stand up like a man”, as in the spirit of Job 38:3. That is, have the guts to answer some questions rather than confusing the issue. You’re being deliberately evasive and I think there’s a less-than-genuine rationale for it. I don’t think a contextual read-thru gives any other impression.
Readers need to note that CT has still not answered the clearly stated questions I have asked. He/she is still trying to argue over premises as though they’re open for debate, when several people have explained why they’re not. Rather than provide real answers to response questions and explaining him/herself, CT keeps coming back to dead ends rather than making a genuine attempt at “progress”.
In fact, CT, you went right back to arguing a pointless issue rather than answering the question asked of you.
As others have said, the question of abortion, like everything else, is moral first. What comes after that is secondary. I am not perfect, but I make an effort to only do that which I feel is moral. That’s the point of morality.
In a Christian’s decision tree, the first question is, “is it moral?” The “No” from that decision goes directly to “don’t do it.” Non-moral concerns may well be important, but they are all subservient to the morality of the action.
CT, I accused you of sophistry because that’s what you call less-than-honest attempts to put an intellectual veneer on diversion tactics. I’ll ask again for you to respond to the so what questions I asked. If you can’t, or won’t, then you’ll prove yourself a person who’s not the least interested in “making progress” on this issue.
@Charlie:
There have been nearly 50 million abortions since 1973. Had it not been for these abortions, it is reasonable to suppose that tens of millions of people would have reached adulthood. It is reasonable to suppose this even with the supposition of a sovereign God. Do you you agree?
Now the second question: Is it reasonable to believe that each of these tens of millions would have gone on to have saving faith?
All,
CT is still not responding to pertinent questions. The LPA is not a Biblically valid argument, and CT has made absolutely no progress in demonstrating otherwise. Until CT is willing or able to answer some of the basic question that have been asked of him/her, I think it’s clear that all he/she is really interested in is argument for argument’s sake.
I would suggest we demand CT actually participate in dialogue; this would require answers to the posed questions before anything else is discussed.
CT, you’re continuing to ignore the points made. Whether abortion fits some perverse definition of “best interests” is irrelevant to the Christian when considering abortion. This is in exactly the same way as murdering my neighbor is not an action judged upon on the basis of pragmatism.
If you don’t understand that, or cannot discuss it, then this topic might be beyond you. More likely is that there is an issue of scriptural authority here that contradicts your preference, and so you prefer to be evasive and argumentative rather than open.
I don’t know how to be more direct. How dare you say something like this…
…while refusing to do just that. The only interests you’re spending any time considering are your own: and you seem to have a large interest in avoiding a real discussion.
Answer the questions, repeated here for convenience:
Or, you could just admit that you’re not really interested in “progress”, just self-justifying nonsense.
@Charlie:
The Christian can reasonably suppose that masturbation among married Amish men violates the command of God, and is therefore not morally permissible. For this Christian, this puts the activity of the masturbation among married Amish men in the same category as trafficking children in the sex trade. Namely, both activities are morally impermissible.
But is nothing else about these activities relevant? Does it not also matter that trafficking the children in the sex trade destroys the lives of many children?
Suppose now that you must decide between financing one of two campaigns that are fighting these immoral actions. One is fighting Amish masturbation and the other is fighting child sex trafficking. (We can suppose that both campaigns are effective, but that both could really use the contribution.) If you think that there is “nothing else” to consider about the two immoral activities, then this makes it rather difficult for you to consider priorities.
Is it appropriate to neglect the fact that the sex trafficking of children greatly harms many children? Is it appropriate to dismiss all distinctions between this activity–which has real victims–and masturbation?
@CT,
Again, you’re trying to confuse the issue. The question of “is action X morally acceptable” is not the same as choosing between two morally corrupt options, Y znd Z. That there are other dimensions to abortion does not change the fact that it’s an immoral practice, and therefore not scripturally defensible.
Answer the questions you’ve left unfulfilled. You’re starting to embarrass yourself at this point. This is typical of the pseudo-intellectual approach most pro-lifers get into when they want to talk about the Bible. You’re avoiding the real issue because you know you can’t defend your view.
Are you even going to try, or is your next post going to be more of the same evasive gibberish?
Hi CT,
I see your point on abortion/morality/social activism, but this is not what we were discussing, or what I thought we were discussing. Yes, there are many factors that will determine how one will marshall his resources and fight his battles.
This has nothing to do with whether or not abortion is right, ought to be performed/ condoned/encouraged or argued for.
Your fascination with male auto-eroticism aside, your point comparing this to child trafficking is, again, inapplicable to the issue of your so-called LPA.
Once again, you are trying to argue LPA from a Biblical perspective. You are trying to use the Bible and Christian belief in its defence. This has nothing to do with your case and puts it at odds with truth. A Biblical argument tells you that murder is wrong and can not be used to condone murder. To try to make a Biblical argument is to make a moral argument and the only moral conclusion is that murder is wrong. It is not to be done.
Now you wish to shift the question to one of activism. Of course here I agree with you, it is not merely a question of God’s approval as to whether and to what degree a person will fight a particular wrong (but, as said many times before, this renders your LPA irrelevant to the question yo wish to raise). Not all Christians fought to bring about abolition, or civil rights, or woman suffrage. For many it is a matter of conscience and priority.
But whether or not one is going to use his resources to make a social impact says nothing about whether or not one ought to perform or condone an immoral act.
And, to repeat, if you are going to lift the question out of its moral domain into a pragmatic one you are making a category error by trying to enlist a moral, Biblical argument to do so.
Tom and Medicine Man have been right from the start.
Also, you really do owe us an answer to Medicine Man’s questions.
Let me spell it out a little more clearly.
Is this a question of Biblical teaching and morality?
If not, then don’t use the Bible.
If so, then use the Bible properly.
Is it a pragmatic question independent of the Bible and morality?
If so, don’t use the Bible.
If not, use the Bible properly..
Either way, the question for the irrelevant LPA is as MM and/or Tom said many times – so what? Why have you been gnawing this bone for three days when it is meaningless?
There is a generous amount of confusion among the critics of the loving parent argument. Following a restatement of that simple argument, I will emphasize eight claims, stating them as clearly and straightforwardly as I know how.
The loving parent argument suggests a direction one might for securing claim (4):
Now I emphasize eight claims:
(i) The LPA does not address the morality of abortion. This should have been clear from my very first post on this issue:
(ii) The LPA merely concludes that abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn baby.
(iii) Neither I nor the LPA recommend practicing or promoting abortion.
(iv) It matters whether or not abortion is in the best interest of the aborted baby. It would be unscriptural and immoral to dismiss as irrelevant the interests of unborn human babies. Though abortion may fall into the category of morally impermissible actions, we can distinguish those immoral actions which have real victims and those which don’t. If the LPA is correct, then abortion presumably doesn’t have real victims in this sense: abortion presumably is in the best interests of those whom it most directly and significantly affects. I maintain that this fact should have implications for our prioritization of abortion among the many problematic (or sinful) social issues. (last paragraph of #24; #34; #79)
(v) I recommend an orderly method of inquiry: we should first investigate the merits of the LPA as an argument prior to investigating the precise implications its conclusion should have upon decision making. (see comment #64)
(vi) The LPA is not in conflict with the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments say, “Thou shall not kill.” The proponent of the LPA can reasonably both accept the authority of this commandment and maintain that abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn. The LPA neither states nor implies that abortion is not against the law of God. (comment #48)
(vii) The LPA does not conflict with scripture, reason, or empirical fact. Though abortion may be immoral, contrary to the law of God, sinful, and in opposition to the design of God, none of this entails that abortion is not in the best interest of the unborn.
(viii) The LPA is in conflict with a contemporary cultural dogma which, though unscriptural, has dominated the minds of many Bible believers.
@CT:
In response,
(i) Means that the LPA is totally irrelevant to a discussion of abortion for anyone claiming to be a Christian, as has been stated over and over. If God says, “no”, that means “no”.
(iv) Matters, to who? Does it matter if my children stand to gain hundreds of thousands of dollars to use for college, via life insurance, when I think about murdering my wife? You can’t claim this as a “scriptural” argument when the act in question blatantly contradicts a fundamental moral principle of scripture. Are you even reading your own words?
You cannot amputate “immoral actions with no victims” and “immoral actions with victims” from each other. Every sin has consequences, every sin has a victim: at least the sinner, and probably others. The “victimless crime” bit is a sorry, silly cop-out.
Even worse, you’re suggesting that abortion victims are somehow not “real victims”. What about the woman? Try counseling a woman coping with the inevitable depression and guilt of killing her own baby.
You mentioned the huge number of aborted children and the likelihood that some might or might not be saved. Take the same approach to mortal contributions! How many would have become doctors, soldiers, scientists, or teachers? How many might have become brilliant musicians, artists, or philosophers? How many potential Galileos, Mozarts, Newtons, Einsteins, Pasteurs, Steinbecks, Lincolns, Augustines, or Churchills have been killed? The entire world is a victim of every abortion, so any claim that we can chalk butchering babies up as “victimless” is despicably shallow.
The attitudes behind abortion are incredibly important to the real-world impact of many other issues. I agree that there are many things to struggle over, but I don’t think that government-sanctioned murder gets the bye. If an argument like the LPA is meant to soften our response to this kind of immorality, then it’s worse than irrelevant, it’s a part of the problem.
(v) Orderly is all well and good, but if you’re going to seriously consider the merits of anything before you consider its fundamental morality, then you’re not operating in a scriptural, Christian, or even rational manner.
(vi) suggests more of the same (that you’re making no sense, and this is a pointless discussion). If it’s so clear that the LPA does not deflect the moral status of abortion, then the LPA cannot be rationally discussed until after the morality has been determined. And the answer doesn’t allow for the LPA to make any impact, anyway.
(vii) So what, then, for heaven’s sake?!? In what warped universe do we need to operate to say, “action X is immoral, but it’s beneficial for group A, so we should consider it / not worry about it / ease up on it, etc.”?
(viii) I have no idea what you’re talking about. If you mean the LPA conflicts with the conviction that immoral actions are immoral actions even if they’re practical or good for some people, then color me dogmatic. If it’s immoral, then it’s wrong – period. It would be one thing if the LPA, or your defense of it, tried to claim that abortion might not be immoral in some cases. That’s a different issue.
If you’re somehow suggesting that adherence to the Ten Commandments is “unscriptural”, then I have to wonder what hallucinogen is seeping into your air supply. If you’re not, then I can’t grasp your point.
ct you are continuing to leave out relevant facts in order to make your case (which failed yesterday when I pointed out that it is not in the best interest of the would-be believing baby to be aborted).
Your LPA in bold:
(1) God sends some people to Hell.
This presumes that God exists and has the authority to send people to Hell. This makes God the moral authority in this matter and makes the question itself a matter of His moral authority.
This falsifies your first defence:
(i) The LPA does not address the morality of abortion.
It obviously does – even ignoring the fact that you cannot separate abortion from its morality.
(2) Hell is a place of eternal suffering.
This and the above recognize the Bible as a reliable source of information on God and His decrees. We also know from this source that God is all good, all just, all knowing and will use our objectively evil, immoral deeds for good.
(3) God presumably does not send unborn babies to Hell.
This bit of exegesis is non-Biblical but is a reasonable assumption based upon the above.
(4) Therefore, abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn.
This non sequitur ignores the pertinent facts required above to even presumably, conditionally draw it.
We have to reliably accept that God is all good, works all things for good, is the moral authority, is all just, knows all things and is properly, if not completely, represented in the Bible.
With all this known and acknowledged, with God’s direct admonition that we not commit murder, knowing that He will not allow any of His children to be lost, and knowing that justice is in His hands, one cannot conclude that our murdering of unborn babies, which is against God’s command and presumes knowledge over and above His, is in the best interests of anyone – the murdered babies no less than anyone else.
Moreover … what Medicine Man said.
@MedicineMan
MedicineMan writes,
Consider comment #79. We may distinguish between sins that involve an obvious harm to others and those that don’t. Child sex trafficking belongs to the first group; Amish masturbation to the latter. If the LPA is correct, there is an important sense in which abortion presumably belongs to the latter group as well. That is, rather than ultimately harming the unborn baby, abortion turns out to be the best interest of the unborn baby.
You say that this is not relevant to Christian whether abortion is in the best interests of the unborn. First of all, if this weren’t relevant, why in the world are you so upset by the LPA? But you are in fact wrong to think that the LPA’s conclusion is irrelevant for the Christian. The interests of unborn babies should be relevant to Christians—both for scriptural reasons and that even the heathen can easily acknowledge. We ought to concern ourselves with the concerns of the unborn. If abortion was not only sinful but also ultimately harmful to those whom it most directly and significantly affects (i.e., the aborted babies), then combating it would surely have to take a priority over the fight against many other sinful problems in the world (e.g., Amish masturbation).
Read carefully:
@Charlie:
The LPA itself does not make any claims about the morality of abortion. It makes no claims about whether or not the issue of abortion can be separated from issues of morality. It is entirely compatible with the LPA for abortion to be immoral. All of this is very straightforward.
Hi ct,
It doesn’t need to. It introduces the question of morality in its very first premise. It doesn’t even get off the ground without addressing Biblical morality.
You rely upon the existence of Biblical morality and cannot just wash your hands of this condition when it suits you.
@Charlie:
For your peace of mind, please add “premise zero” to the LPA. Let premise zero read: “Abortion is immoral, contrary to the law of God, sinful, against the designs of God, and it is a downright disgusting practice.” Everything else can stay the same. That is, we can still conclude that abortion is presumably in the best interest of the unborn baby.
Do you deny that an action can be immoral and yet still be in the best interest of those whom it most directly affects? If so, on what grounds?
Please take a step back and think over all of these things. I’m calling it a night.
In the United States there has been 49,551,703 abortions since Roe v Wade in 1973. Christians can be thankful that this number represents many souls that have been spared eternal torment in Hell. As a direct consequence of these abortions, many souls will not be separated from God for all of eternity. You may imagine some of these souls smiling down on us tonight, perhaps cheering on this important conversation.
Goodnight, ct.
I can think without stepping back. As I said, you rely upon the existence of God and His morality to even get started. The LPA begins as a moral question which must take God’s law into account. It cannot avoid this once you admit God and Hell.
Not unless the word “presumably” is doing some very secret and very heavy lifting that I am not aware of.
If abortion is immoral, contrary to the law of an all-good, all-just God, a rebellion against this God who works all things for the good of His children, against the designs of the designing God behind the universe and all its laws, etc., then, no, it cannot be in the best interest of the unborn baby in any way that commends it. If you choose to argue that it is in the best interest of the baby because God, in His sovereignty, has already willed that the best interests of the baby will be observed then it is only equally in the best interests of the baby as is not aborting him – in other words, by admitting the obvious fact that you cannot escape the morality of the question you further emphasize the irrelevance of the issue.
If that is your point, that no matter what we do God’s will be done, then you lose your justification for even presenting this falsified argument (determining how best to marshal our social activism).
Insofar as what God has ordained will be done and will use our evil intents to do good, yes, an immoral act can be in the best interest of anyone. This is not an argument for that act, however, nor even an argument for ignoring the issue in favour of another. If it is anything but irrelevant it is an argument for complete apathy in all matters- which is in violation of God’s moral command to us.
Not only is your argument falsified but so is your purported rationale for pounding on it going on four days now.
No souls have been spared eternal damnation by their murder at the hand of man.
Poking my nose in one more time:
ct: you want to come to some amoral, practical conclusion with respect to what is in the best interests of the child, and having done that, add moral discussion in to the mix later. But your argument is stillborn. You cannot do what you claim to be doing; it is impossible.
This is foolish. I use that term advisedly, with the context of the book of Proverbs in mind, where foolishness is associated with some weakness or failure in moral understanding. Your error, in addition to what has been repeatedly spoken above, is in thinking we can separate the practical dimension from the moral dimension in your thought experiment. We can’t. You can’t either, though you seem to think you can.
You say, “let’s just agree that abortion may be in the best interest of the unborn, and then we’ll add in moral categories later. We’ll consider all of them together in the end before we decide whether abortion is moral or not. But for this one limited LPA aspect of the argument, let’s set the moral categories aside for now.”
So let’s just look at the barest bones of your premise, as quoted above, and let’s do as you requested and leave, “you shall not murder” out for the time being.
Can anyone conclude what is in the “best interest of the unborn” without some moral principle being entered as a term in the equation? The term “good,” (and its superlative “best”) applies to morality, aesthetics, and function. To say that abortion is in the best interest of the child, but not in a moral sense, must mean that it is best in some aesthetic or functional sense. Is that all you had in mind? Some aesthetic or functional improvement in the child’s future? Can you weigh the interests of the unborn on some purely functinal or aesthetic ground, or some eternal pleasure-principle, and leave out moral principles entirely? Do you think God approaches decision-making in this way? Is that the model you want us to follow? Would you cut the child’s life off from any moral significance, making it just an aesthetic or functional thing?
This is not God’s way. His moral character and his holiness suffuse every statement he makes, every decision, every action, every aspect of his word and his being.
I think this bifurcating, this attempted intercission (a term from The Golden Compass, which shares some appropriately unpleasant connotations with this situation) of action from moral categories, is what has both baffled and nauseated me about your whole argument from the start, ct. It denies the character of God and of his revelation to us.
You keep insisting that the conclusion, “abortion is in the best interest of the baby,” can be examined apart from the moral principle, “You shall not muder.” You forget that “you shall not murder” is not an isolated principle. It expresses the character of God, his love for life, his love for his creation, his intention that we would live out our lives on earth for whatever reason he has chose. You forget that God has kept for himself the proper right to choose when a life is best preserved or best ended, and it is only his wisdom that is sufficient to know when a life is best preserved or ended. Yet you claim that you know!
Further, to say “abortion is in the best interest of the child” is to imply that the best interest of the child is an important consideration. (Remember: my point in this comment is that you are wrong to think you can shelve the moral dimension for a later stage in the discussion.) To take the best interest of the child up as a matter of interest in itself is a moral decision. I can demonstrate that by a question and a challenge. The question: Where does the child’s best interest enter in? The challenge: try to answer the question coherently without making any moral statements whatsoever. Now, I’m not saying that the child’s best interest is a bad thing to consider; my point is that you cannot consider it without considering it morally; whereas you have been trying to put moral decisions off until after we’ve agreed that the child’s best interests are worth considering. You can’t put the moral decisions off that way, because you’re making them as you go
You can’t escape the moral component, even though you try to set up your conclusion to be morally neutral. You can’t save the morality of the discussion for later: it’s bleeding through every premise and sub-premise of your argument.
Finally, when you say “abortion is in the best interest of the child” because the child will go to heaven, you arrogate to yourself the decision to send a child to heaven on your own terms. This is not your decision, you fool! This is God’s decision, to be accepted by the individual. By drawing this conclusion you are (even if only in a thought experiment) playing God.
When you say “abortion is in the best interests of the baby,” you say, “I’m smarter than God on what’s in the best interests of human life.” If you claim to be Christian, then I call on you in the strongest of terms to repent from that sin. For that is what it is.
@CT,
Which, for the Christian, is again a meaningless division. Whether the harm is “obvious” or not, all sin involves harm to someone. You can’t choose to downplay the impact of sin in certain cases simply because you lack the concern to see it. There is no victimless sin, so if Yoder Magruder is secretly touching himself in his buggy, there’s at least one victim of that sin: Yoder.
I’m not upset, I’m opposed. I know you keep saying otherwise, but none of your attempts to answer my “so what” questions change the end result: God says it’s immoral, LPA says, “but don’t worry so much.” That makes this application of the LPA a backdoor justification, or at least a softening, of the moral error of abortion. I don’t agree that abortion is one of those sins that’s of little consequence enough to not worry about. I also think, as others have explained, that the “best interests” argument gets a little thin when you’re discussing murder.
The basics of what you’re trying to say aren’t complex; you keep repeating them as though my problem is one of understanding. I get it, I’ve always gotten it: “abortion is wrong, but aborted babies wind up in heaven, so let’s worry about something else”. As I said, the problem I have there is that the assumptions, attitudes, and philosophies that justify abortion are exactly the same that are brought out when discussing social justice, poverty, racism, freedom, and so forth. If you give abortion a pass – in any sense – then you’re tacitly tolerating the flawed assumptions that cause so many other social and moral problems. If you can’t see that, then you have a very poorly developed understanding of all of those issues, both from a spiritual and secular perspective.
In other words, A Christian must take a holistic approach to social issues and morality, because one’s view of the world is either consistent or contradictory. Everything is connected. On some levels, you’re right that certain issues are less impactful on culture and probably don’t need as much attention. I could respect that argument in regards to green hair, music styles, or such, but to treat abortion – the wholesale murder of millions – as anything less than critically relevant is absurd.
@Tom Gilson:
Some of the misunderstanding in your last post might have been avoiding if you had read this comment to Charlie (I’ll hereafter call premise zero “Charlie’s premise”):
Please do try to answer this last question. You might think of the immoral action as that of stealing a box of chocolates from someone on a particular occasion. Recall that earlier question:
@Charlie:
I can imagine a number of ways in which you might try to defend your bold declaration at the end. None of them, however, are very attractive:
a) Do you think that, had they not been aborted, no one among the 49,551,703 would have grown up and failed to come to saving faith in Christ?
b) Do you think that God condemns unborn babies that are aborted to eternal torment in Hell?
c) Do you reject the reality of eternal damnation?
Morning ct,
So now we’ve no misunderstanding about the moral questions involved in your LPA – you cannot divorce the question form the morality and your premises are shot-full of moral claims. You have conceded that it is addressing morality from the start and in premise 0 have admitted that the question on the table is immoral (for the sake of argument, I know).
Not only have you lost your previous rationale for the discussion at all, as noted last night, but you have also lost one that you offered Tom a few days ago. You told him that it would be immoral not to consider the best interests of the aborted babies. As he is showing you in his most recent, even to discuss “best” and “interests” is also to introduce moral speculation.
So on top of everything else your LPA is internally inconsistent. You admit that abortion is immoral in and of itself, but that we are morally obligated to consider it. How can we possibly be morally obligated to consider doing an immoral act? If we can possibly consider doing the immoral act (we are not obligated to be moral) then why ought we consider this question at all, which you say we are morally obligated to?
So on top of being just plain wrong, on top of it being unable to address the question it is designed to, on top of everything else, the LPA is self-refuting as well.
ct:
First of all, Charlie has summarized things well just now. Second, your argument even here is foolish:
Yes. I deny it may be possible for an action to be immoral and still be in the best interest of those whom it most directly affects.
In the case of the box of chocolates, it doesn’t just affect the person who loses it. It affects the thief, and it affects God. Its effect probably spreads far wider than that, though I won’t try to make more of your thought experiment than can profitably be made of it.
In the case of abortion: abortion affects the baby, the mother, the medical personnel who kill the baby, the rest of the health-care system that is often censured for not supporting abortion (i.e. pharmacists who object to dispensing morning-after pills), the mother’s family, the father’s family, the generation of all those who would have grown up with that child, future generations following that child and all of his or her cohort, the medical payment industry, the overall economy; and also the legislatures, executives, and courts that have approved abortion; and if that’s not enough, it’s an affront against God himself.
So I vigorously and vehemently deny that you can speak of “the best interest of those whom it most directly affects” as if it applied only to the child who gets murdered; and I see absolutely no reason whatever to follow your attempts at reasoning it through in such an unrealistically truncated manner. It is purely academic sophistry to carve out “the best interests of the baby” and discuss the question on those terms alone while pretending you are discussing “the best interest of the one most directly affected.”
And I still put it to you in the strongest terms that what you are presenting is manifestly foolish, foolish in the sense that the Proverbs warn against so severely. I strongly suggest—as I have seldom if ever done on this blog—that you take heed to that as a warning toward yourself.
I will be closing discussion on this thread in an hour or so. Take your last opportunities now if you wish.
@Tom Gilson:
What are we to make of this? How does the reasoning you provide for your denial related to what you deny? Are you supposing that the thief’s victim isn’t the one who is most directly affected by the crime? Are you supposing that the it is not the aborted baby who is the person most directly (usually I add “and significantly”) affected by the abortion? A bit surprising, no?
This is an important issue, but let’s not compromise clear thinking for the sake of (possibly confused) ideas about piety.
ct,
Let me do a quick review.
In your first LPA comment you said you didn’t know about the morality of abortion. Now we do know – it is immoral – as one of its very premises.
You said its premises are compatible with the Ten Commandments in your second comment. They are not. The first premise admits that we are violating God’s moral law, and the original first premise, as well as subsequent premises already allowed that God’s moral law is relevant to your question, even though you tried to divorce the two.
From #21 on you’ve been asked the relevance of your LPA, the “so what” question, and I don’t recall that anyone has found you to be answering this.
It has been a rhetorical game of “gotcha” which, for some reason, you want to present as a reasonable exercise in fruitful dialogue.
You then accused Tom of dismissing the LPA without grounds. You’ve presented the grounds yourself – abortion is repulsive in the sight of God.
You said that to dismiss the LPA was to ignore its Scriptural implications all the while ignoring the greater Scriptural implications – that God has decreed murder to be against His will – and His will is determined by His nature, which is all good, all knowing, all just, all loving, for starters. To go against His decrees is not to act in one’s best interests.
You even admit at comment 40-something to MM that the conclusion of your LPA is false. You admit that, in the case of the would-be believer, being aborted and going directly to be with God is not in his best interests. At which point you made it an issue of you gambling with the infant’s eternal fate while admitting you do not have the pertinent information to know what is in his best interests.
Among the other questions you can’t answer you’ve never told me what it means for one to conclude presumably.
Your case has failed at every point, as evidenced above, by the fact that you have to keep reducing it to simplistic levels which destroy the analogy and that you have destroyed your own reasons for presenting or considering it.
CT,
This really is getting pointless. Some immoral actions might beneficial for the victim only in a fleeting sense, and only in theory. But it’s an incredibly arrogant idea to claim that an action directly opposed to a moral precept of God is in the ‘best interests’ of the victim of that precept! God did not say, “Don’t murder…unless you can think of a reason why being murdered is good for the victim.”
To say that means you don’t believe that God’s morality has our best interests in mind. That’s an idea you haven’t dealt with yet, and I’m sure you won’t. Your reasoning is clear, but clearly insufficient.
So what? Abortion is still immoral, and should be opposed. LPA does not give any reason to think abortion is an unimportant social issue. You’re making a lot of noise about an argument’s importance when we’re all denying it’s relevance.
I’m starting to hit the apathy wall pretty hard here. I don’t know exactly what your agenda is here, but you’re either arguing that we accept abortion, or that we set it aside in favor of other issues. I strongly disagree in both cases.
I have to agree with Tom that you’re running into an extremely dangerous spiritual region. You’re defending the LPA with a level of dogmatism and insistence that calls your motivations into question. Why are you so adamant about lessening the Christian opposition to abortion? That’s what this is about, plain and simple. The real danger here is the way you’re doing it: by warping Biblical statements and trying to insert your philosophy along side God’s commandments.
On top of everything else, you keep talking about piety and reason. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for slandering either of those ideas by taking the approach you have.
I note Tom’s closing this out, which is fine on my end. I think CT is ten feet deep in Colossians 2:8 and Proverbs 27:22. In hindsight, I’m surprised that I justified such a vapidly ridiculous position with a response. I should have left the pestle on the table.
Hi ct,
I think you long ago abandoned any claim to aesthetics in this argument.
a) Why not? Is God not sovereign, just, good and loving? Can He not make good out of our intended evil?
b) I don’t know. I infer from the above and hope that He does not. But I am not God and do not know better than Him.
c) No. I take the Bible very seriously.
None of your unattractive choices has anything to say about the bold statement I made.
It is given to Jesus, not to man, to judge. We are explicitly old that we are not the judges in these matters. Taking on that role, as you do in your LPA, you disobey God and deny His truth. We cannot determine the eternal destiny of any souls.
You keep trying to make a Biblical argument by ignoring the Bible.
@ct:
I am saying (not just supposing) that it is artificial, pedantic, and academic sophistry to draw the line of distinction you want to make between the baby as the one “most directly affected” by the crime, and all the thousands of other people, and God himself, who are also affected; therefore I reject the premise of the argument, along with all the conclusions that flow from it.
Is it really important to think about this as if we could split out the baby’s interests from all others’? Is it really so important to decide the answer to this sophistical academic question? Is it really important to parse it out so, when we already accept that the Bible says murdering children is immoral?
I’ll answer for you, since I’m going to close off replies. The answer is no, it’s not so important to do that at all. This is enough discussion now; there’s no need to wait for the hour to pass.