Board index ‹ Abortion

[Handsome]

Guaranteed ticket to Heaven, zero chance of Hell. It's a cheat code. The best possible scenario to maximize the number of souls in Heaven is if we all die young or unborn. 100% membership. I could argue that if a bomb went off in India, killing 100 children, it's not necessarily a bad thing because all those souls are now saved, as opposed to just a few of them if they lived to adulthood and most likely stayed Hindu. Living an adult life is not a gift but a curse, because with it comes the possibility of Hell. No rational person would take "chance of Hell" over "no chance of Hell". Let's all die young.

[jimwalton]

The argument you have posed is a utilitarian argument: Do whatever works. The end justifies the mean.

It has been correctly objected that principles of this sort can yield absolutely awful results. Suppose the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people can be achieved by enslaving or killing the rest? Many illustrations of this sort are fatal to your proposal. This is not a moral principle, but rather than abandonment of morality. You put so-called morality in the hands of the powerful to define a supposed "good outcome," and in the process possibly justifying the most horrendous means at hand.

The means have to pass the test of goodness and morality also, in order for the equation to balance.

Instead, Christians would take a deontologist viewpoint: the rightness or wrongness of an act derives from the action itself and not from solely the consequence of the act. If a person is ethical and seeking a justifiably ethical end, then he should be ethical at all times without exception. The means are just as important as the ends. It is self-contradictory for some who claims to have high moral standards and a moral goal to engage in morally dubious behavior to achieve a moral end. Instead, we look for moral means to moral ends so there is no self-contradiction. It is very hard to justify an unethical act (murder, abortion, whatever) by stating that the goodness of the outcome outweighs any wrongdoing. No excuse can make a morally wrong decision a right one. Taking an unethical step to solve a problem makes a person just as guilty and immoral as the original wrongdoer. Instead, the ends and means must be worthy of each other.

While many Christians believe that aborted children or children who die go to heaven, frankly the Bible makes no definitive statement on it. Therefore we are wildly and immorally remiss to abort or murder babies (to guarantee they die young or unborn) to "Skip the test and get the prize."

[Handsome]

I will take everything you're saying for granted. To me, the only fair solution is if the children came back and tried again. No freebies. God can't give free passes to some and not to others.

[jimwalton]

> To me, the only fair solution is if the children came back and tried again.

What is your definition of fairness? What makes this fair? And why is it the only fair solution?

> God can't give free passes to some and not to others.

Why not? What if some people deserve free passes, while most possibly do not? Is it not within God's right to be generous, merciful, and just when the circumstances call for or even mandate a free pass?

[Tin Man]

Isn't all sacrifice utilitarian?

[jimwalton]

I don't think so. Some could be altruistic: I sacrifice because I love you, not because it accomplishes anything. Some could be principled: I sacrifice because those are my principles, not because it accomplishes anything.

[Handsome]

It is fundamentally unfair. No one "deserves" anything, hence why the original sin condemned us.

[jimwalton]

In contrast to you, then, I have a sense of justice: good should be vindicated and wrong should be condemned. The whole point of courts and judges is to cultivate justice in society to prevent the powerful from oppressing the weak, the wrong from suppressing the right, and evil from overwhelming the good. Most human beings, though apparently not you by the way it sounds, have a fundamental, internal sense of fairness. Wait a minute, I just reread your post where you said "it is fundamentally unfair." OK, then, if there is a "fundamental" aspect to "fairness," then people actually *do* deserve certain things, whether vindication or punishment. if I'm reading you write, and feel free to interact, of course, if there is such a thing a "fundamental fairness," then you can't also say "no one 'deserves' anything." Let's talk.

> hence why the original sin condemned us.

I guess I would need to see the Bible text where it says original sin condemned us. We condemn ourselves.

* Matthew 5.18-19: But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
* James 1.14: but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.
* John 3.19: This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
* Jeremiah 17.9: The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.

We're not condemned by original sin. We're each condemned by our own sin.

[Tin Man]

Is it a sacrifice if it doesn't accomplish anything? Or is it just loss? I can't think of an example of a sacrifice that didn't at least attempt to accomplish anything, even if that something was a demonstration of one's feelings to someone else.

At least according to the dictionary, sacrifice always implies some level of trade.

[jimwalton]

This is the second time you've mentioned sacrifice, and I played along the first time, but I didn't say anything about sacrifice, so I'm not sure why this is a point of discussion. Maybe you can clarify for me.