Many pundits have seized on the murder of Christina Green as the most tragic event in the tragic Arizona massacre. For many, the death of the young hits hardest because they had so much to lose. They had a whole life ahead of them, until that was cruelly taken from them. The wasted potential.
But by the same token, where is the same lament for a life cut short by abortion?
"But by the same token, where is the same lament for a life cut short by abortion?"
ReplyDeleteOutta sight, outta mind.
Photos and pictures of Christina Green splashed all over by the media.
Do you see photos and pictures of unborn babies splashed all over by the media?
And don't you dare think of putting the the latest in ultrasound technology out there in abortion mills. They might see that their baby is a baby!!
Word Verification: borti
I am still puzzled as to why Christians (particularly Triabloguers) don't rejoice at abortion. I was taking a look at an exchange between some authors of this blog and Hector Avalos last summer and I came across this little gem:
ReplyDeleteA. It is morally permissible to use any action that achieves the highest proportion of saved souls.
B. Abortion, with its 100% salvation rate, is an action that achieves the highest proportion of saved souls.
C. Therefore, it is morally permissible to use abortion as an action to achieve the highest proportion of saved souls.
If one strengthens premise "A" from "It is morally permissible..." to "It is morally required...," the conclusion would be similarly strengthened: It is morally required (not merely permissible) to use abortion to use any action that achieves the highest proportion of saved souls. For the Christian who believes that all aborted fetuses are people who get a free pass to heaven, the problem would is to explain why the argument, in either its weaker or stronger variant, does not hold.
If aborted souls get a straight one-way ticket to heaven, what's the problem?
I already went over that ground with Avalos, both in TID, and subsequent exchanges.
ReplyDeleteSteve, like most people, I have the misfortune of having to work for a living. I don't have hours to spend going through old posts looking for your (undoubtedly compelling) riposte. If you would be kind enough to post a link with your response or email it to me at theatheistmissionary@gmail.com, I would be grateful.
ReplyDeleteThor bless you. TAM.
TAM,
ReplyDeleteIt won't take you "hours" to do a simple word search of TID to find the relevant arguments. (Well, if it does, perhaps you should stick to your day job.)
Steve, thank-you for referring me to TID - all can find on this issue is the following passage:
ReplyDeleteAvalos says, ― First, if it is true that killing infants ushers them immediately into the presence of God, and spares them corrupting influences, then this is a fantastic argument for abortion…If soul saving is the goal, then abortion provides a 100% salvation rate‖ (225).
i) Since I don‘t presume the universal salvation of dying infants, that‘s not an argument I‘d use. At the same time, I also believe that God is often merciful, and never less than just.
ii) But even on its own terms, that would be a very shortsighted argument for abortion. Far fewer humans would be saved over the long haul. For a 100% abortion rate would quickly result in the extinction of the human race. If there‘s no replacement rate, there‘s no salvation for future generations. Only the aborted generation would be heavenbound.
#1 is a punt that rejects the premise that aborted souls go straight to heaven. This leads to the conclusion that if the premise is correct, you would have no argument with the conclusion. Help me out if I am missing something here.
#2 leads to a conundrum that I am sure you must have considered. While it might work to argue against abortion of the babies of Christians, it doesn't work when you consider abortion of the children of heathens. While you might be able to convert some of them, I trust even you will admit that they won't all be saved. As a result, I would think it would make perfect sense for Christians (relying on your arguments) to support abortion of the babies of non-believers unless you reject the notion that those aborted souls will be saved. Again, you have punted on that issue.
You obviously feel that the quantity of the saved is important. This raises an interesting question which correlates to the English-based criminal justice system which operates on the assumption that it is better for ninety nine guilty people to go free than to wrongly convict one innocent person. The question is this:
Based on your understanding of the Bible, which of the following situations are preferable?
1. 1,000,000 children of non-believers born, 500,001 of them saved during their lifetimes and 499,999 of them damned; or
2. 500,000 of non-believers born and all of them saved.
TAM said: #1 is a punt that rejects the premise that aborted souls go straight to heaven. This leads to the conclusion that if the premise is correct, you would have no argument with the conclusion. Help me out if I am missing something here.
ReplyDeleteWell that's a big "if" isn't it? In order to get that argument off the grand, you would have to prove (from scripture) that aborted souls go straight to heaven.
TAM said: #2 leads to a conundrum that I am sure you must have considered. While it might work to argue against abortion of the babies of Christians, it doesn't work when you consider abortion of the children of heathens. While you might be able to convert some of them, I trust even you will admit that they won't all be saved. As a result, I would think it would make perfect sense for Christians (relying on your arguments) to support abortion of the babies of non-believers unless you reject the notion that those aborted souls will be saved. Again, you have punted on that issue.
Which arguments specifically were you referring to? Steve already stated that he rejected the notion that aborted souls are automatically saved. Why is that a punt? Either there is clear evidence from the scriptures that aborted souls are saved, or there is not. If there is not, there is no punt.
TAM said: Based on your understanding of the Bible, which of the following situations are preferable?
1. 1,000,000 children of non-believers born, 500,001 of them saved during their lifetimes and 499,999 of them damned; or
2. 500,000 of non-believers born and all of them saved.
It's an irrelevant exercise. The number of the elect is known only to God, therefore our "preferences" are irrelevant. What is preferable is whatever is preferable to God. More importantly, man has not been given the right to decide who should live and who should die. "Thou shalt not murder" is the command, not "Thou shalt not murder except for children of non-believers".
I realize this probably won't satisfy your curiosity, but do you really think you have a serious argument here?
It's quite simple, TAM. The command "Thou shalt not murder" overrides the result of that murder. In the Christian worldview, 1) God has reserved the power of life and death for Himself, except in certain limited circumstances; 2) We follow the moral commandments to our best ability, and 3) the ends do not justify the means.
ReplyDeleteAbortion is truly the unseen holocaust of the age. More visible are the many murders of ordinary people every day in the US that never make the front page of the newspapers. And since we're camping on Arizona for the moment, how about the Mexican drug war being waged across southern Arizona that continues to claim the lives of countless people? This all goes on without so much as a yawn in the average news day, yet their hackles are up about the murder of a politician. People are not well-balanced.
ReplyDeleteNeal writes: "It's an irrelevant exercise". According to your belief system, it's by no means irrelevant for499,999 of them. None of you will answer the question because it exposes the intellectual vacuity of your position. No matter which way you choose - you lose. A dogmatic Sophie's Choice, if you will.
ReplyDeleteNeal writes: What is preferable is whatever is preferable to God. Love that old handy dandy mystery card. Comes in handy when you're backed into a corner, doesn't it?
Jonah, it's not quite that simple. Take me for example - I don't give a sh*t about the supposed divine commands of anybody's chosen deity. According to your worldview, I'm going to hell in a handbasket anyway. However, I may be able to send many, many fetus souls straight to heaven by becoming an abortionist cetring exclusively to non-believers.
Wait, wait ... the Triablogue faithful protest: "we don't presume the universal salavation of dying infants". Well, that's a pretty significant equivocation - isn't it? How can you be so certain that atheists will go to hell when you can't even tell me if an 8 month old fetus is going to get to heaven? Surely you have some scripture or divine revelation to give you guidance on that?
Is that all I'm going to get here - a huge "we don't know" about whether fetus/infant souls go to heaven so therefore Avalos' "abort to salvation" plan is preposterous, even for the children of non-believers?
I also responded to Avalos here:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/split-personality.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/amoral-imperative.html
TAM said: According to your belief system, it's by no means irrelevant for499,999 of them. None of you will answer the question because it exposes the intellectual vacuity of your position. No matter which way you choose - you lose. A dogmatic Sophie's Choice, if you will.
ReplyDelete499,999 of who? You posed a hypothetical question. I rejected the premise of your hypothetical, so yes, it is irrelevant. You can set up all the straw men you want, but it doesn't mean anyone has to take the bait when it doesn't represent their position.
TAM said: Love that old handy dandy mystery card. Comes in handy when you're backed into a corner, doesn't it?
Don't know if it is a "mystery card" or not, but you're asking Christians who are giving you Christian answers. Okay, you don't like the answers, I get that. Have a nice day.
TAM said: it's not quite that simple. Take me for example - I don't give a sh*t about the supposed divine commands of anybody's chosen deity.
According to your worldview, I'm going to hell in a handbasket anyway. However, I may be able to send many, many fetus souls straight to heaven by becoming an abortionist cetring exclusively to non-believers.
Whether one gives a sh*t about the Law has no bearing on one's accountability to that Law. To see this in action, the next time you get pulled over for speeding, just tell the cop you don't give a sh*t about the speed limit, and see how far that gets you.
TAM said: Wait, wait ... the Triablogue faithful protest: "we don't presume the universal salavation of dying infants". Well, that's a pretty significant equivocation - isn't it?
How so? It is merely stating the truth.
TAM said: Is that all I'm going to get here - a huge "we don't know" about whether fetus/infant souls go to heaven so therefore Avalos' "abort to salvation" plan is preposterous, even for the children of non-believers?
Yeah, pretty much. I mean, how many times does it have to be repeated before you get it?
TAM, there are a couple of things underlying this debate. 1) you're an atheist, you don't believe in Heaven or Hell anyway, so why do you care? 2) You're asking Christians for an answer to an alleged internal inconsistency in our worldview. That's an internal critique, so legitimately, we argue from an internal viewpoint. We have shown you that our worldview is consistent within itself. God does not choose to reveal to his creation every answer to every question. That's the way the universe works. It's our job to serve Him joyfully.
ReplyDeleteIt now remains for you to show an external inconsistency that applies to the question at hand, otherwise, the question is settled.
Steve wrote: Many pundits have seized on the murder of Christina Green as the most tragic event in the tragic Arizona massacre. For many, the death of the young hits hardest because they had so much to lose. They had a whole life ahead of them, until that was cruelly taken from them. The wasted potential.
ReplyDeleteBut by the same token, where is the same lament for a life cut short by abortion?
Now before I begin, let me say that we share the same concern for lives cut short by abortion. Alright, that being said, by opening with a comment on Miss Green and then discussing abortion, have you not yourself become one of those "pundits" using the tragedy of Miss Green for your own agenda?
Again, we agree basically on both subjects here - but to combine the two as if they are or can be equivocated on some level, IMHO, detracts from both points.
The bigger issue with the tragedy of Miss Green and the others who were shot is that of the state of mental health care not only in Arizona (which is among the worst states in this regard) but also the whole country. We need better safeguards in place for the protection of the mentally ill AND of society as a whole. The Tucson tragedy was caused by someone who needed help, fell through the cracks, and didn't get it - even if that "help" was to lock him up for his own safety and that of the rest of us.
My 2 cents...
Scott<<<
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThanks for illustrating your lack of reading skills.
i) Did I say many pundits were using her tragic death to further their agenda? No.
ii) Did I say it's inherently wrong to use a tragedy to further one's agenda? No.
But nice job of projecting. That also comes in handy for Marian apparitions.
As for my reading skills...
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: Many pundits have seized on the murder of Christina Green as the most tragic event in the tragic Arizona massacre.
So, you're discussing the fact that "many pundits" have seized upon this... then...
For many,
You're still talking about the same group of people according to your sentence structure.
...the death of the young hits hardest because they had so much to lose. They had a whole life ahead of them, until that was cruelly taken from them. The wasted potential.
But by the same token, where is the same lament for a life cut short by abortion?
After my comments you said:
i) Did I say many pundits were using her tragic death to further their agenda? No.
Well, in a sense you did, but you made it YOUR punditry which you were "seizing" upon this subject for a different agenda.
ii) Did I say it's inherently wrong to use a tragedy to further one's agenda? No.
Nor did I, I merely pointed out that you had "seized" upon this tragedy - on the very day of Miss Green's funeral - and while "many" are still in mourning, you divert the subject to abortion. Ironically, Gabrielle Giffords supports! abortion and the murder of nearly 4000 United States citizens every day!