The author's arguments depend entirely on a religion's views of the purpose of life and the afterlife:
"The overwhelming majority of pro-life advocates are religious, and many of those are Christians who hold the following beliefs:
There exists a morally perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful god who created our universe.
Restricting abortions ought to be a top social and political priority.
Embryos and fetuses that die all go to hell for eternity, or they all go to heaven for eternity."
Why do Judeo-Christian religions prohibit murder? ("Thou shalt not kill")
Many religions say that the times when a person should be born and when a person should die are up to God's purposes and plan for that person. By this reckoning a murder causes a person to die BEFORE the time that God appointed for them to die.
In a similar way, many religions view abortion as a form of murder--killing a person before they were born and outside of God's plan for that person. The afterlife fate of a murdered person regardless of how they were murdered would be up to God's judgement. To try to declare what God's judgement for a murdered person would be as justification for their murder would be both arrogant and evil.
> Many religions say that the times when a person should be born and when a person should die are up to God's purposes and plan for that person. By this reckoning a murder causes a person to die BEFORE the time that God appointed for them to die.
I can't see how to reconcile this belief with an all-knowing and all-powerful God. If murders were disruptive to his plan, wouldn't he just prevent them from happening? Are all non-murder deaths part of his plan? If I am hit by a car while in the crosswalk by someone who looked down at their phone, is that part of God's plan for me, but if the driver maliciously ran me down, it isn't? What if it was an accident, but they were drunk? Is God somehow frustrated or annoyed when a murder happens? Does it surprise God?
This is one of the oldest theosophical questions and much has been written about it.
The quick and dirty answer is that God can permit things he wouldn’t do himself because he deems people having free will as more important basically. But this is a really crappy analogy. The term of art is “the problem of evil” - https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article2
>> I can't see how to reconcile this belief with an all-knowing and all-powerful God. If murders were disruptive to his plan, wouldn't he just prevent them from happening? Are all non-murder deaths part of his plan? If I am hit by a car while in the crosswalk by someone who looked down at their phone, is that part of God's plan for me, but if the driver maliciously ran me down, it isn't? What if it was an accident, but they were drunk? Is God somehow frustrated or annoyed when a murder happens? Does it surprise God?
It depends on how a religion views free will and God's role in governing the universe.
Some religions hold that free will exists and that God allows people to act freely according to their own will and choice. In this view, God is all-knowing and all-powerful, but God lets people act freely. In the afterlife, God judges people based on their actions during their lives and rewards or punishes accordingly.
"Messing with God's plan" is only one way to arrive at this conclusion; I agree with your objections.
As I see it, killing people simply isn't in the gamut of options we should choose with our free will. Ten Commandments state "thou shall not murder" but without an immediate justification; just don't.
>By this reckoning a murder causes a person to die BEFORE the time that God appointed for them to die.
The same god that told his people to go into the populated land and to kill every last man, woman, and child. So was it those people's purpose to be murdered therefore helping them meet their scheduled time of departure?
You got tripped up on one word I included "murdered". Sending one's people in to annihilate the peoples of the land (some would say genocide) regardless of gender, age, active participation in combat, etc would qualify as murder.
>> Sending one's people in to annihilate the peoples of the land (some would say genocide) regardless of gender, age, active participation in combat, etc would qualify as murder.
By modern standards, yes it would be murder / genocide.
>> Thou shalt not commit murder.*
>> *Unless I explicitly tell you to, then it's okay.
Exactly. If God told you to do it, it must be okay.
After all, if God commands you to do something and you don't do it, bad things could happen to you.
>Exactly. If God told you to do it, it must be okay.
Okay, so, now that we've established that it's okay as long as god said so, how do we handle those people that said "god told me to do it"? What evidence that god actually did the commanding? Do we look for burning bushes? Do we look out for a pillar fire hanging out by the temple? Oh, right, that was old testament stuff. We're clearly in the new testament stuff, so gonna need some examples of proof of work on that voice in the head being the actual god that it has been established as being okay to say murder someone(s).
>> Okay, so, now that we've established that it's okay as long as god said so, how do we handle those people that said "god told me to do it"? What evidence that god actually did the commanding?
That's a very good question without a good objective answer.
Most Judeo-Christian scripture has miracles or supernatural events occur that demonstrate that God is involved in what is happening. There also tends to be a religious leader of some kind who is "calling the shots" so that people know that the extraordinary events are not chance occurrences, but the work of God. For example, Moses and the plagues of Egypt.
There is an excellent podcast by Dan Carlin that discusses what can happen when "God told me to do it" went bad during the Reformation:
But you've only provided an old testament example. I explicitly called for new testament examples.
New testament is all about turning the other cheek, and not mass murdering a whole race of people. Are we supposed to look for a single set of footprints? "God told me to do it" new testament style would be to go out and feed the masses, or forgiving the guy that has been persecuting your people to become your most prolific evangelist. There was no sidekick or witness to new testament "miracles", just the word of the person. (It just so happens the feeding the masses and turning water into wine just so happened to be the god in person, so sidekick not required).
But God, being all-knowing, already knew which fetuses would be aborted, and which people would be murdered, before he even created the Universe. Therefore, it's all God's plan, no matter what.
You need to assume abortion is murder to be against it.
If I went to an Animal Shelter every day, got a cat or a dog and then painlessly killed it when I got home no one would call me a murderer. A monster maybe but not a murderer.
Everyone thinks that we owe dogs and cats a certain amount of respect. We acknowledge that sometimes we have to kill them but we're trying to create a world we do not have to do that.
My problem is with people who are so eager to preserve their freedom of action if they one day want to kill their dog that they will not concede that doing that is something we all want to avoid. That the question we're discussing is not if it's right but how exactly we should go about making sure it doesn't ever have to happen.
I understand there is a fear that people who kill their pets will be put in jail - and that lead to people getting hurt. Or that if we don't pay for people to have their pets killed then only rich will people will be able to kill their cats. It's possible to look at this from different angles and come to what might seem strange conclusions - I just don't think we should lose sight of the fundamentals.
What's the overlap between religious anti-abortion motivations and the sentiment that the fetus must be able to lead a life outside the womb? I hear a lot more about the "lead a life" as though it's a definite good, but not so much about the afterlife implications.
The bible (and God) don't say much about living life apart from the duties you have to praising God or treating each other one way or another (loving each other, stoning each other, etc.). The Judeo-Christian bible revels in stories of torment for the living, so being accessing life outside the womb is in no way intended to also access liberty or the pursuit of happiness. In fact, a delivered infant could be celebrated for a life of unremitting suffering (which seems sort of perverse, but I find the purpose of that God to be mysterious along with everyone else).
For a Christian it's not "theoretically". It's absolutely certain. The article argues a logical point from within the Christian framework. Obviously if you are outside that framework, nothing of it makes any sense.
Author is unfamiliar with actual Christianity (ie. dogmatic Catholicism). Unbaptized children go to a part of Hell where there is no fire (The Limbo of the Children); they are denied the beatific vision. Full explanation:
> Author is unfamiliar with actual Christianity (ie. dogmatic Catholicism). Unbaptized children go to a part of Hell where there is no fire (The Limbo of the Children); they are denied the beatific vision
You are presenting the "Limbo of the Children" as "dogmatic". The International Theological Commission (a body of expert professional theologians whose members are appointed by the Pope) has a rather different view on that Limbo [0] than you do (my emphasis): "This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis". [1]
[0] I say "that Limbo", there is also much talk of "the Limbo of the Fathers"; and more rarely and controversially the "Limbo of Virtuous Pagans"
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex
cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of
death, which can often take place, when no help can be
brought to them by another remedy than through the
sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from
the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among
the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be
deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the
observance of certain people…”72
> However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.
Catholic teaching is that you need to interpret the text you cite "in that sense in which the Church herself understands it", not according to your own private judgement.
Correct. There are certain dogmatic truths (baptism is required for the beatific vision, God is good, God is merciful, etc) but beyond that there’s just speculation. Other suggestions have included baptism by blood and God breaking his rules (which only he is allowed to do, no fair!). Nobody actually knows.
We can’t know what heaven is like at all so it’s likely that whatever we think of as heaven is actually much more applicable to some kind of hell.
> We can’t know what heaven is like at all so it’s likely that whatever we think of as heaven is actually much more applicable to some kind of hell.
Your comment reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit". Henry Valentine's eternal punishment is to always get what he wants. At first he thinks he's gone to heaven, it takes him a month of always getting everything he wants to realise he's actually been damned to hell.
There wouldn't have been conflict with the Protestants if what you say were true, which of course its not.
Pope Pius VIII: “Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark. Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved. He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.” (Traditi humilitati #4, May 24, 1829)
> Under this reasoning, there is no moral justification for opposing infanticide
...if they go to heaven yes. If they go to hell then there's a huge reason to oppose it. But of course, this causes another moral hazard for Christians.
This IS the consequence of taking Christian beliefs seriously. The good thing about Christians is that they don't really take their beliefs seriously. That's a huge strength. There's a reason "fundamentalist" literally means "believes in the basic ideas" and also means "a crazy person".
This who debate boils down to drawing hard lines on top of gradients. I find it uncomplicated to argue that a blastula is not a human (yet) and the potential for life is not a useful moral metric either (otherwise it'd be immoral not to maximize fertilization and child output).
Everything in between a few cells and a baby is a gradient between next to nothing and complete humanness, and somehow we need to agree where lines should be drawn to binarize this gray area for moral and legal decision making. It's clearly an impossible task, so the fight will persist.
I generally agree, but to nitpick: I’d say a blastula is a “human” insofar as the term identifies a distinct organism of the human species. But it may not be a “person.”
If the moral logic of heaven mean that we shouldn't condemn infanticide (after all it just gets souls to heaven faster, and heaven is way better than earth), isn't that a problem for Christian doctrine, not the author of this paper?
It’s not, because it assumes all sorts of things about the purpose of life and the afterlife, what’s “better,” and applies a utilitarian definition to the morality of killing.
"The overwhelming majority of pro-life advocates are religious, and many of those are Christians who hold the following beliefs:
There exists a morally perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful god who created our universe.
Restricting abortions ought to be a top social and political priority.
Embryos and fetuses that die all go to hell for eternity, or they all go to heaven for eternity."
Why do Judeo-Christian religions prohibit murder? ("Thou shalt not kill")
Many religions say that the times when a person should be born and when a person should die are up to God's purposes and plan for that person. By this reckoning a murder causes a person to die BEFORE the time that God appointed for them to die.
In a similar way, many religions view abortion as a form of murder--killing a person before they were born and outside of God's plan for that person. The afterlife fate of a murdered person regardless of how they were murdered would be up to God's judgement. To try to declare what God's judgement for a murdered person would be as justification for their murder would be both arrogant and evil.