Abortion

If all good people go to heaven, does it really make sense to outlaw or condemn killing good people?

This explains why people convicted of horrible crimes are given the death sentence. It's not so much for the purpose of ending their life here as it is for the purpose of beginning their eternal life in hell.

I kind of feel like you're insulting me. I was genuinely trying to engage in dialogue. You didn't really answer my question, which is, I think valid. I'm not trying to stump anyone, and I'm not saying I'm for killing babies...but the logic makes no sense to me. Why is there such a fear and outrage about death in the religious community when the next life is suppose to me so much better?

If was told I had to take a really hard test, but if I pass, I will get set up for life. And then, because of some clerical error, I'm not able to take the test. But then I'm told that if I can't take this test because of no fault of my own I automatically win and am set for life. I would fail to see why anyone would feel bad for me because I couldn't take the test.

The only conclusion I can come to is that people of religion don't actually believe fully what their faith teaches them.

I'm thinking the supposed insult is all in your mind.

You're missing my point. Are you answering my question with a question because it's difficult to answer? I'm not saying I believe in killing good people, including children. What I am saying is the logic makes no sense to me. You wouldn't feel like a terrible thing has happened to an unborn fetus unless you think they missed out on something by not getting to live. But if Christian teachings are correct, those unborn children wouldn't miss out on anything because Heaven is so beyond anything we have here on earth. My point is, people of faith will never reach non religious people if they can't connect with them using critical thinking skills. Almost all argument against abortion are always done by driving an emotional message, rather than one based around substantive arguments.

Well, I don't really understand how your answer addresses my question...which I am really interested in.

In the post you referred to, you claimed to feel insulted. If there was a question in there, I apologize and admit I didn't notice it.

Does this member think everyone is insulting him/her?

Nah. Just me and Glennn. Of course, we're the only ones to bother with the topic.

Is that some kind of wise crack? Are you insulting me ? ! ? ! ?

Read my sig line.

Oh, now you're giving me reading assignments . . . you're just the limit Roget . . .

Okay, go read my thesaurus.

Is that some kind of dinosaur?

In the Lord's Prayer it says, "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." The implication is that there is this perfect place that we can only imagine, where everything is good because that is the Lord's will. The prayer is that this same good will should reform/refine Earth in the image of heaven.

So now ask yourself if you believe there is sex and abortion in heaven? First, the question is whether sex and reproduction are really something truly perfect or if they are a necessity for perpetuating life in this imperfect world where biological organisms die.

The next question is that if death is an inevitability of the flesh, and thus sex and reproduction are a necessity for the perpetuation of life, what is the best way to handle that? Should we allow death to be determined by nature, or should we take the power of death into our own hands as imperfect humans with flawed motives and interests?

Another question is to ask what the relationship is between sexual intercourse, reproduction, and happiness. Can people be happy without intercourse except for the purpose of reproduction? Maybe they can and they just don't know it because sex is marketed to them in so many ways. "Sex sells," the proverb goes, so we are constantly being marketed sex to stimulate sales for people trying to make money off us.

So the issue isn't really whether dead children/babies/fetuses go to heaven, but how to follow through on the Lord's Prayer and attempt to honor and thus facilitate "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in heaven."

Thank you livinglava for some substantive dialogue. You did make some valid points I want to highlight, just so you know I'm listening.

1. The goal is to make Earth in the image of Heaven. If that is the Christian belief then it would make sense that certain actions that are viewed as ugly such as terminating a fetus, which is viewed by many Christians as an actual child, would be something you would want to do away with. To be honest, that is the most insightful answer I have received on this question, because the focus is on Earth becoming a better place rather than the loss of the child/fetus itself.

2. Death and procreation are a part of life that should be managed by God because of man's inclination to do thing for their self interest.

These are good point and something to consider in future interactions with people of christian faith; definitely something to be mindful of.

I do have a few counterpoint.

1. You pose the question "Should we allow death to be determined by nature, or should we take the power of death into our own hands as imperfect humans with flawed motives and interests?" Based on this argument I might be inclined to believe Christians pick and chose which things should be left in God's hand and what shouldn't. There are plenty of instances where christian's take advantage of the man made advances that I doubt they would hotly contest or be willing to give up. How about modern medicine that prolongs life when nature is ready to claim someone. Simple things we take for granted like inoculations are prime example of that.


2. As far as the goal of making Earth in Heaven's image, I see your point however, if this is the main issue with abortion then why is it so passionately a hot button issue over the many other egregious offenses. The same people fighting to stop abortion are trying to lock down our country because they believe in taking care of Americans first. That does not sound like a policy that would be employed in 'perfect place'. I fail to see how the suffering on people post-birth takes the backseat of the unborn. It would seem like there should be parity on both these issues because the application of both abortion and protectionism prevent the further development of earth in Heaven's image.

Thank you for respectfully considering and understanding my points before responding. I wouldn't use the word, 'ugly,' because that implies aesthetics instead of morality, but that is another philosophical discussion.

As for your point about Christians picking and choosing which things should be left in God's hands and which not, that is a tricky issue because there's no clear delineation between what is done by God and what is artificial and/or against His will. For example, if a gardener weeds a garden to favor the good plants, is that an artificial intervention, good stewardship of a natural process, or both? You could say that abortion is like weeding a garden (a kindergarten), but the question is whether such weeding should occur through abortion or through management of sexual activity, i.e. monogamy, marriage, and abstinence when pregnancy is not a desired outcome. I think that is a more natural method of birth control that is less violent, the same way it is less violent to skip a meal than to eat it and then vomit it back up.

To your second point, I don't think anyone wants to rank issues because they know that the liberals will use that as leverage to get them to concede some issues in favor of others. E.g. if they say that abortion is more important than fair trade, then liberals will offer to concede on abortion in exchange for dropping their case on fair trade. If abortion and fair trade are both issues, why shouldn't they both be pursued as issues within democracy?

If liberals are for free trade regardless of its fairness and free abortion without restriction, why don't they just make their cases for their perspectives in the legislature and in public discussion instead of using strategic power plays to win policies? To me it seems very strange that politics is more tactical now than open-discussion. It seems like a failure of democracy to use public discussion as a battlefield for deploying strategic, tactical power plays instead of just discussing issues. I guess the problem is that people want so badly to win that they are more focused on outcomes than on making a case for why their views should be adopted.