[A]ny non-beneficial effect of abortion/infanticide on its victims is infinitesimal when compared to the overwhelming benefit that they receive through such acts.

(That is, if we assume that (a) God does not condemn fetuses/infants to hell, but (b) God does condemn some to hell who are older, and ( c) hell is a place of eternal suffering and banishment from God.)

Now you seem to be admirably disturbed by the idea that abortion and infanticide are sinful. We can wholeheartedly commend you for this. However, it turns out that we both can fully affirm the sinfulness of these actions and recognize that their effects are to the overwhelming benefit to their (suppose) victims. Thus, I suspect that we agree more than you may realize.

With this distinction in mind (again, the distinction between the sinner and the sinned-against), I take it that you would agree that the consequences of abortion and infanticide benefit their victims.

“Look how my sinning against you benefited you”, said the rapist to the girl who gave birth to a beautiful child.

“Look how my sinning against others benefited you”, said the thief who gave a stolen car as a gift to his mother.

No, I wouldn’t agree.

You are quite right that this would be a way to avoid conclusion. One can imagine the arm-chair theologians reading something like this into the Bible (assuming that they care about scripture) in order to avoid the surprising conclusion that abortion/infanticide are in the interests of their victims. On balance, however, I don’t know if defending such a hypothesis holds any theoretical advantage over defending a rejection of one of the three premises a-c.

With this distinction in mind (again, the distinction between the sinner and the sinned-against), I take it that you would agree that the consequences of abortion and infanticide benefit their victims. We can even strengthen this to say that any non-beneficial effect of abortion/infanticide on its victims is infinitesimal when compared to the overwhelming benefit that they receive through such acts. And that’s something to ponder.

Here’s how to avoid the troublesome consequence of a & b & c. (a = infants/fetuses never condemned to hell, b = some adults are condemned to hell, c = hell is hellish, i.e. is a place of horrendous pain.)

Say that everyone, no matter when they die, will reach intellectual maturity somewhere (in another life if not in this one) and that, when intellectually mature, they will either choose to accept God or reject him. Acceptance, moreover, guarantees eternity in heaven and rejection eternity in hell. On this view, when an infant dies, its final destiny is still up in the air; it might be heaven, it might be hell; for the infant has yet to mature to the point where that fateful decision must be made. Thus we cut off the inference that when an infant dies, it is thereby benefited.

I don’t exactly buy this, but it is in the space of logical possibility.

I believe we should distinguish the question of whether such actions benefit their victims from the question of whether such actions are sinful/immoral.

The sin doesn’t benefit them, the benefit benefits them.

…some sins sometimes benefit certain (other) people.

…said the rapist to the girl who benefitted by having a beautiful child. Yeah, I know it’a abrasive and over the top, but I’m growing weary of pointing out the obvious.

Any Christian view that maintains these three ideas will have a very difficult time avoiding the conclusion that abortion/infanticide are in the interest of their victims (or, as I put it recently, that abortion/infanticide benefit their victims).

What part of ’sin ought to be avoided’ don’t you understand? I have a very EASY time concluding that it is in the interest (benefit) of everyone to avoid what ought to be avoided. For some strange reason, you think the opposite – you think it is of interest (benefit) to NOT avoid these things.

I’m happy to concede that on many Christian views (or, as some will insist, “Christian” views), it does not follow that abortion/infanticide benefit their victims. But I would just make two remarks. First, the real key to drawing this conclusion lies the ideas that (a) God does not condemn fetuses/infants to hell, but (b) God does condemn some to hell who are older, and (c) hell is a place of eternal suffering and banishment from God. Any Christian view that maintains these three ideas will have a very difficult time avoiding the conclusion that abortion/infanticide are in the interest of their victims (or, as I put it recently, that abortion/infanticide benefit their victims).

Second, there is no reason to “to relocate just where the sin of murder lies” since indeed we have never located where the sin of murder lies in the first place. I have tried to warn against drawing any implications about the sinfulness of murder/abortion/infanticide merely from the fact that some of these actions benefit, or are in the interest of, their victims. I believe we should distinguish the question of whether such actions benefit their victims from the question of whether such actions are sinful/immoral.

These last comments should be relevant to SteveK’s last reply (#119). That is, the fact that “sin ought to be avoided” is neither here nor there. That sin ought to be avoided is not inconsistent with the idea that some sins sometimes benefit certain (other) people. (see #116)

We can therefore say, it seems, that actions that bring about the death of a fetus/infant are actions which result in some benefit for the fetus/infant. Since abortion and infanticide result in the death of their victims, we can conclude that abortion and infanticide benefit their victims.

Sorry, but there is no middle ground in my conditional statement here.

“The victims, not having any desires, did not avoid that which ought to be avoided, therefore what occurred was not in their interest.”

While there are various types of sin, sin is always sin, and so it is something that ought to be avoided. It is of interest to no one.

And I think you are giving the phrase ‘in the interest’ too much of a positive connotation when you said:

You know SteveK, if we’re right to conclude that death is in the interests of infants, then this takes some of the sting out of genocide (our original problem).

It’s as if you are implying that death itself is a positive thing. I know you said we should avoid using terms like “want”, “desire”, etc., but I can’t help but read that meaning into your statement. The interest, I think, lies on the other side of death.

There are subcurrents with Christian theology that would have us look at the matter entirely differently. What if we were to say that salvation consists in regeneration (and not that salvation is gained by acceptance of Christ’s vicarious punishment on the cross). On such a view, the point of life – the reason why God allows us to remain in this veil of tears – is to provide the possibility of moral regeneration. The point of life is to grow in Christ.

Now, if this is our view, then obviously a child is harmed when it is killed. Not ultimately harmed, of course; for if God wishes us to grow in Christ, opportunity will somehow be provided, even after death. (Notice, then, that on this view our eternal fate is not sealed by our state at the moment of death.) But still the child would suffer a temporary harm, and so it would not be in the child’s interest to die.

On this view, we do have to relocate just where the sin of murder lies: it does not (necessarily) bring about any ultimate harm to the one murdered. Rather it betrays a disregard for the good of another, a disregard that finds the other of so little value that their ultimate fate is of no consequence. The sin of murder, then, is not so much in the effect on the one murdered as in the mind-set of the murderer.

I’m relieved that you don’t consider dying a sin! And I think we’re making progress! We can probably even expand our agreement:

Since, as you agree, dying while still an fetus/infant is in the interest of that fetus/infant, it clearly follows that actions which bring about their deaths are actions which result in something that is in their interest. We can therefore say, it seems, that actions that bring about the death of a fetus/infant are actions which result in some benefit for the fetus/infant. Since abortion and infanticide result in the death of their victims, we can conclude that abortion and infanticide benefit their victims.

At this point, I expect you will agree, given that we can still assume that that abortion and infanticide are sinful and immoral (unless–as in the case of genocide–this is something that God, on a particular occasion, has ordered).

It is in the interests of fetuses and infants to die as fetuses or infants.

Dying naturally at any particular time is not a sin so I don’t have a problem with this, per se.

if everyone’s interests are not the same, then abortion and infanticide are in interests of their victims.

I would say this: the antecedent is true and the consequent is false because of another conditional statement that goes like this:

Sin ought to be avoided. It is in the interest of all to avoid that which ought to be avoided. Said in the reverse, it is NOT in the interest of anyone to NOT avoid that which ought to be avoided The victims, not having any desires, did not avoid that which ought to be avoided, therefore what occurred was not in their interest.

The entire conditional is false.

(edited again so re-read)

“Either everyone’s interests are the same, or abortion and infanticide are in interests of their victims.”

But you might focus in on even simpler claim that I just presented to Franklin:

“It is in the interests of fetuses and infants to die as fetuses or infants.”

This last claim may be true even if “everyone’s interests (ultimately) coincide.” See comment 110.

Wow! I have read your entries on this blog and others and have found I have agreed with you some, disagreed with you some and wasn’t sure about some things. But the last thing you wrote was excellent!! That is the KINGDOM OF GOD!

Thanks for making it so clear.

It is in the interests of fetuses and infants to die as fetuses or infants.

(Notice, and as always, we are still not talking about the permissibility of killing fetuses and infants.)

It is also possible that you do not understand how the parts of the conditional statement work together. (Thus my question, “Are you a native speaker of English?”) Suffice it to say that the conditional statement can be true in only two ways: (1) the antecedent is false, or (2) the consequent is true. Thus, if the antecedent is true and the consequent is false, then the entire conditional is false.

I think I get it, and I think I agree. Christianity is filled with many strange and wonderful things: the God-man, the Trinity, original sin and the atonement, miracles, immortality, etc. etc. Here’s another, then: the interests of one human beings are ultimately the interests of all. I just finished up a post at The Philosphical Midwife which explains why, if we accept the Law of Love (love God and neighbor as self), we ought not be surprised with this complete coincidence of (ultimate) interests. When I love you, I make the satisfaction of your interests an interest of mine. Thus if all love all, there is no interest of one that another does not have an interest to realize; that is, in this sense interests coincide.