June 2nd, 2009
An argument demonstrating the consistency of Christianity and abortion:
1) The soul is everlasting and indestructible.
2) The soul will spend eternity either in the presence of God or the Lake of Fire.
3) Abortion terminates earthly life, not the soul.
4) The soul of the preborn infant is in a state of natural grace.
5) An innocent abortus immediately enters the presence of God.
6) Thus, abortion, unlike earthly life, guarantees salvation.
7) Therefore, abortion – guaranteeing salvation – is morally praiseworthy.
8) Any morally praiseworthy act is consistent with Christianity.
9) Abortion is consistent with Christianity.
QED
The Bible also mentions punishment for if a man were to strike a women and cause her to lose her baby. It’s a fine.
The punishment for murder is death.
Therefore, according to the Bible even an assault-like “abortion” is not murder, but closer to “theft”. There’s no mention of a punishment if the woman requests termination of her pregnancy.
“4) The soul of the preborn infant is in a state of natural grace.”
This is only true for Catholics as of last year. Before that, the souls of the unbaptised went to purgatory, because they still have the stain of original sin. Then the Vatican just decided purgatory doesn’t exist all of a sudden, even though it had been perfect revealed truth before that. Somewhat Orwellian.
I think that certain kinds of protestants – the kinds that kill abortion doctors – think anyone who has not accepted Jesus as their personal saviour just goes to hell to be deservedly tortured for eternity.
I believe you may be referring to “limbo” rather than purgatory. Limbo was posited as a state of natural happiness, outside of the beatific vision.
Purgatory is alive and well.
You are correct that denominational views of natural grace vary widely.
These tend to flow from views of original sin, a doctrine first proposed by Augustine and greatly elaborated by Aquinas. Lutherans and Anglicans keep it, many anabaptists (precursors to Mennonites) reject it (thus admitting natural grace in various forms and degrees), and Calvinists frame the problem quite differently (predestination for salvation or damnation right from creation in Hard Calvinism, various modifications in Soft).
Interestingly, it was also Augustine who first proposed an idea of natural grace. This was hard to reconcile with original sin, and voila: Limbo.
Missing a premise necessary for validity.
6b) Any action which guarantees salvation is morally praiseworthy.
Let’s examine this with another syllogism.
Killing a newly baptized 8 day old baby guarantees the child salvation.
To guarantee the salvation, we must murder the child.
Murder is against God’s laws.
Something against God’s laws cannot be morally praiseworthy.
Not all actions that guarantee salvation are morally praiseworthy.
So, unfortunately, your construction fails.
~I.
“4) The soul of the preborn infant is in a state of natural grace.”
I’m not sure most Christians would agree with you on this point. From a Catholic perspective, you could argue that original sin begins when life begins, which they claim occurs at conception and not at birth.
Did you see husband’s reply about this? Should be somewhere above yours…
Somehow all those Christians can’t seem to agree on what the rules are. It’s like they’re just making it up themselves, rather than getting it from the bible or the actual word of God – if they had a true and correct source, wouldn’t they all agree? Of course it’s possible God is just a terrible writer/terrible communicator, unable to get his actual wishes across to the people who worship him. Which I find hard to reconcile with omniscience… but how else do you explain that there are literally tens of thousands of different Christian sects?
I think the christians who fight against abortion and murder abortion doctors would overwhelmingly say that a fetus has a soul. But it will depend on sect. We wanted to take the most conservative position we could, to be safe.
Oh theologians can waste centuries debating important topics such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin* and whether or not women have souls. There is no biblical support for many of the things that are fundamental to many of the current Christian philosophies. Theologians try to apply logic and reason to explain something that they themselves admit is illogical and unreasonable (well, they probably say that it transcends both logic and reason).
(* all of them)
All of them? Are you sure? ;P
Yeah, I’m getting a good taste of the tortuous rationalizations as I read the apologetics and their critics. Pretty funny stuff.
My reasoning being:
1. if you do not believe in angels, then we can say that every angels that does exist can dance on the head of a pin, along with every leprechaun, unicorn, and fairy.
2. if you believe in angels, and think that they’re incorporeal, then every angel can occupy the same space simultaneously upon the head of a pin.
3. if you believe in angels, and believe them to have a corporeal form, then you simply need a pin of sufficient size to accommodate them all.
I bow to your impeccable logic. All of them it is!
Wouldn’t it be the ultimate sacrifice? A guarantee of salvation for the child through the damnation of the saviour? If it’s not even morally praiseworthy, then it’s even more of a sacrifice! All Jesus did was suffer through a really unpleasant weekend, and he gets to live in heaven AND he gets praised more than anyone! Talk about nepotism…
I stand corrected.
“A pin than which none greater can be conceived!”
LOLing to myself over here…!