Christianity and Abortion

[Kenyon]

As I understand it, christian doctrine provides for exactly two ways to get into heaven: making the choice to accept Jesus as your savior, or dying young enough not be held accountable for this choice.

If that's true, all aborted babies would go to heaven. Alternatively, if none of the babies were aborted, some would grow up to accept Jesus as their savior, and some would not. Thus, some would go to heaven, and some would go to hell.

If the overarching goal of Christianity is to get as many souls into heaven as possible, it would seem that abortion is actually aligned with that goal.

[Jonah]

I thought this was a well done article on the span of Jewish thought on the subject:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... _10998531/

[Kenyon]

Your statement implicitly acknowledges the possibility that some children who die young may in fact go to hell. How could this possibly be consistent with an infinitely fair and just God?

I don't see it stated that God is fair. He is just and so I leave that up to him.

Drawing a distinction between fairness and justice doesn't change the essence of my point. Just change the question to: How could this possibly be consistent with an infinitely just God?

Again, I believe that all children go to heaven, but we cannot be dogmatic about it since Scripture is silent.

Then you acknowledge my original premise regarding the two ways to get into heaven.

I wasn't arguing that the end (heaven) justifies the means (abortion). I was arguing that Christian doctrine, taken to a logical end, might actually justify abortion, contrary to many (if not most) Christians' views on abortion.

Please reference the doctrine you are talking about. Because the doctrine of original sin would place all children in hell taken to a logical end.

When I say doctrine here, I refer to the widely taught Christian beliefs that:

a) accepting Jesus as your savior will gain you entrance into heaven
b) dying as a young child will automatically gain you entrance into heaven
c) there are no ways other than b) and c) to gain entrance into heaven

[cholland]

Drawing a distinction between fairness and justice doesn't change the essence of my point. Just change the question to: How could this possibly be consistent with an infinitely just God?

So are you questioning his justice? If he is infinitely just, then whatever he does is just. It may not line up with your idea of justice, but that's why you're man and he's God. I'm not going to sit here and be dogmatic about something Scripture is silent about. That would question his justice if he decides to do opposite of my dogma.

Then you acknowledge my original premise regarding the two ways to get into heaven.

I acknowledge it, but don't agree with it.

When I say doctrine here, I refer to the widely taught Christian beliefs that:

a) accepting Jesus as your savior will gain you entrance into heaven
b) dying as a young child will automatically gain you entrance into heaven
c) there are no ways other than b) and c) to gain entrance into heaven

I don't find (b) anywhere in Scripture. Therefore, I don't see how anyone can teach it.

[Kenyon]

Drawing a distinction between fairness and justice doesn't change the essence of my point. Just change the question to: How could this possibly be consistent with an infinitely just God?

So are you questioning his justice? If he is infinitely just, then whatever he does is just. It may not line up with your idea of justice, but that's why you're man and he's God. I'm not going to sit here and be dogmatic about something Scripture is silent about. That would question his justice if he decides to do opposite of my dogma.

No, I am not questioning his justice. I am assuming for the sake of argument that he is in fact infinitely just, and then making the reasonable conclusion that an infinitely just God would accept innocent children into heaven, rather than condemning them to hell. You stated that you believe innocent children go to heaven, so on some level you must consider this a reasonable conclusion as well.

Then you acknowledge my original premise regarding the two ways to get into heaven.

I acknowledge it, but don't agree with it.

Jesus as the gate to the kingdom is doctrine, the age of accountability is not. There is no Biblical support to say that all children who die young go to heaven. There are examples of this such as David's son and Job alludes at it, but no Scripture to be dogmatic about all children.

NOTICE: I agree with the OP that all children go to heaven since they have no knowledge of their sin. However, my point is that we cannot be dogmatic about something Scripture is silent on.

Your two posts above certainly suggest to me that you agree with my original premise regarding the two ways to get into heaven, even considering your point that the bible does not explicitly support the second (which I don't dispute). If I am mistaken, correct me- what precisely would you consider the way or ways to get into heaven?

When I say doctrine here, I refer to the widely taught Christian beliefs that:

a) accepting Jesus as your savior will gain you entrance into heaven
b) dying as a young child will automatically gain you entrance into heaven
c) there are no ways other than b) and c) to gain entrance into heaven

I don't find (b) anywhere in Scripture. Therefore, I don't see how anyone can teach it.

The immorality of abortion also cannot be found anywhere in the bible. Using your logic, you must not see how anyone can teach that either.

[cholland]

No, I am not questioning his justice. I am assuming for the sake of argument that he is in fact infinitely just, and then making the reasonable conclusion that an infinitely just God would accept innocent children into heaven, rather than condemning them to hell. You stated that you believe innocent children go to heaven, so on some level you must consider this a reasonable conclusion as well.

It's a reasonable conclusion, but we are attributing our justice to God. If he decides to do opposite of our conclusion - (a) we are now forced to question his justice and (b) our conclusion led to the condemnation of billions of children.

Your two posts above certainly suggest to me that you agree with my original premise regarding the two ways to get into heaven, even considering your point that the bible does not explicitly support the second (which I don't dispute). If I am mistaken, correct me- what precisely would you consider the way or ways to get into heaven?

There is only one way that I find in Scripture - through the narrow gate.

The immorality of abortion also cannot be found anywhere in the bible. Using your logic, you must not see how anyone can teach that either.

Explicitly: Ex. 21:22-25
God knows us from conception: Jer. 1:5; Psalm 139

[Goat]

No, I am not questioning his justice. I am assuming for the sake of argument that he is in fact infinitely just, and then making the reasonable conclusion that an infinitely just God would accept innocent children into heaven, rather than condemning them to hell. You stated that you believe innocent children go to heaven, so on some level you must consider this a reasonable conclusion as well.

It's a reasonable conclusion, but we are attributing our justice to God. If he decides to do opposite of our conclusion - (a) we are now forced to question his justice and (b) our conclusion led to the condemnation of billions of children.

Your two posts above certainly suggest to me that you agree with my original premise regarding the two ways to get into heaven, even considering your point that the bible does not explicitly support the second (which I don't dispute). If I am mistaken, correct me- what precisely would you consider the way or ways to get into heaven?

There is only one way that I find in Scripture - through the narrow gate.

The immorality of abortion also cannot be found anywhere in the bible. Using your logic, you must not see how anyone can teach that either.

Explicitly: Ex. 21:22-25
God knows us from conception: Jer. 1:5; Psalm 139

Out of context quotes..

Jer 1:5 is talking specifically about the prophet, and psalm 139 is talking about King David in specific, and how he feels God knew him.

As for exodus 21:22-25.. if someone causes someone elses wife to have a miscarriage due to a fight, he will be responsible for the fine the judge give him.
Elsewhere, the limits of those fines are put in place.. and the judgment against someone causing a woman to miscarriage it far far less for a human life. The person basically took away another man's property, which was the mindset from
the 6th century bc.


Indeed, numbers 5 gives a test for infidelity that causes a miscarriage if the woman is allegedly guilty.

[cholland]

Out of context quotes..

Jer 1:5 is talking specifically about the prophet, and psalm 139 is talking about King David in specific, and how he feels God knew him.

As for exodus 21:22-25.. if someone causes someone elses wife to have a miscarriage due to a fight, he will be responsible for the fine the judge give him.
Elsewhere, the limits of those fines are put in place.. and the judgment against someone causing a woman to miscarriage it far far less for a human life. The person basically took away another man's property, which was the mindset from
the 6th century bc.


Indeed, numbers 5 gives a test for infidelity that causes a miscarriage if the woman is allegedly guilty.

That's true. And all other Psalms were about the writer, and all Proverbs were specifically about Solomon, and all of Jesus' teachings were specifically for the listeners present.

Numbers 5...does God not cause all miscarriages? What's your point?

[Goat]

Out of context quotes..

Jer 1:5 is talking specifically about the prophet, and psalm 139 is talking about King David in specific, and how he feels God knew him.

As for exodus 21:22-25.. if someone causes someone elses wife to have a miscarriage due to a fight, he will be responsible for the fine the judge give him.
Elsewhere, the limits of those fines are put in place.. and the judgment against someone causing a woman to miscarriage it far far less for a human life. The person basically took away another man's property, which was the mindset from
the 6th century bc.


Indeed, numbers 5 gives a test for infidelity that causes a miscarriage if the woman is allegedly guilty.

That's true. And all other Psalms were about the writer, and all Proverbs were specifically about Solomon, and all of Jesus' teachings were specifically for the listeners present.

Numbers 5...does God not cause all miscarriages? What's your point?

Numbers 5 , the miscarriage was induced by the 'mystic' potion that was given to the woman by the high priest.. a ceremony that I don't even think was used during the second temple.. ..

However, it does show that man is involved in life/death choices and should be involved in life/death choices.

So, not only is the passages quoted earlier not a prohibition against abortion, there is a passage in the bible where a miscarriage is actively sought for a specific case.

[cholland]

Numbers 5 , the miscarriage was induced by the 'mystic' potion that was given to the woman by the high priest.. a ceremony that I don't even think was used during the second temple.. ..

However, it does show that man is involved in life/death choices and should be involved in life/death choices.

So, not only is the passages quoted earlier not a prohibition against abortion, there is a passage in the bible where a miscarriage is actively sought for a specific case.

God works through man all the time in order to accomplish his will. Numbers 5 where the miscarriage was against the will of the woman and sanctioned/commanded by God is completely different from abortion where the woman is seeking a selfish way out of her troubles. Moreover, in many cases the woman is receiving the abortion due to pressure from the father. This completely defeats the purpose of the idea that it liberates women and puts them on a equal playing field with men sexually. See warnings from the women's lib movement here as well as an article here.

As far as the passages, are you suggesting that God does not know all people from conception? He has no kind of knowledge similar to that of Psalm 139?

[Goat]

Numbers 5 , the miscarriage was induced by the 'mystic' potion that was given to the woman by the high priest.. a ceremony that I don't even think was used during the second temple.. ..

However, it does show that man is involved in life/death choices and should be involved in life/death choices.

So, not only is the passages quoted earlier not a prohibition against abortion, there is a passage in the bible where a miscarriage is actively sought for a specific case.

God works through man all the time in order to accomplish his will. Numbers 5 where the miscarriage was against the will of the woman and sanctioned/commanded by God is completely different from abortion where the woman is seeking a selfish way out of her troubles. Moreover, in many cases the woman is receiving the abortion due to pressure from the father. This completely defeats the purpose of the idea that it liberates women and puts them on a equal playing field with men sexually. See warnings from the women's lib movement here as well as an article here.

As far as the passages, are you suggesting that God does not know all people from conception? He has no kind of knowledge similar to that of Psalm 139?

Where does it say that he does, other than David thinking he did? A specified case for a king and a prophet does not translate to everyone. Can you show it does?

More importantly, can you show that 'knowing' a prophet or a king 'in the womb' is a prohibition against all abortions?