Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God by nature is good and cannot be immoral. I don't think it is a case that he made morals but that he is morally good by nature.
God acts outside our reality of time and space
No, God, by definition is a Maximally Great Being. As an MGB, He acts at all times according to His own nature. The very reason we are able to claim that morality is objective is because it stems from the perfect, immutable character of God.So God chooses to obey the morals that exist separately from him?
I agree that the claim Christians often make about God's relationship to time is rather non-sensical.This implies that he's unable to exist or act within our reality.
But this topic is supposed to be about abortion. And whether or not you agree with our view of the morality of abortion, the reason we hold to abortion being immoral isn't difficult to understand.
1. God created all human beings with inherent moral worth and value.
2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
3. Killing an innocent human being for convenience sake is immoral and wrong.
4. Unborn human children are innocent.
5. 98.5% of abortions are committed for non-medical emergencies. Or put another way, 98.5% of abortions are committed for convenience sake.
6. Therefore, at the very least 98.5% of abortions are immoral and wrong.
Now, whether or not you disagree with all the premises, the view that Christians hold with regard to the morality of abortion is consistent and understandable.
In Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology book he discusses the attributes of God and puts them into two categories - Communicable and Incommunicable. I tend to think that's the best we can do.I think it somewhat futile for mankind to even attempt to define the attributes of our completely transcendent God. What results are guesses heaped on speculations.
Sure, this is just a rewording of the violinist argument, which I think fails. Lots of apologists have addressed this line of reasoning:Can I offer a slight change of these premises to show that this line of reasoning can be used to justify some bad actions?
1. God created all human beings with inherent moral worth and value.
2. Killing an innocent human (or letting a human die) for convenience sake is immoral and wrong.
3. Sick people who need organ or blood donations are innocent
4. Not donating organs or blood to these people will lead to their death
5. Therefore, I you are a compatible donor it is immoral and wrong not to donate.
6. In addition, the state should have legal authority to force unwilling donors to donate blood or organs because the right to life trumps the inconvenience a blood or organ donation causes.
Thoughts?
Sure, this is just a rewording of the violinist argument, which I think fails. Lots of apologists have addressed this line of reasoning:
Unstringing the Violinist | Stand to Reason
Sample Q&A: The Violinist Argument | Pro-Life Theory and Discussion Tactics
I think the Stanford article does a good job of noting the primary reason why your argument fails. That being that "the 'Right to Life' is a right not to be killed. It is not a right not to die."
In other words, in an abortion someone is intentionally and purposefully killing a human being. This is different than a person choosing not to donate one of their organs to save another's life.
A more apt analogy would be the "Cabin in the Blizzard" analogy:
A New Response to the Violinist Argument | Stand to Reason
You're obviously wrong, and playing the semantics game won't help. The 98.5% of abortions that are committed for non medical reasons are about the intentional and purposeful killing of the unborn child so that the mother can end her responsibility to care for the unborn child.Well technically abortion isn't really about killing the fetus.
You're obviously wrong, and playing the semantics game won't help. The 98.5% of abortions that are committed for non medical reasons are about the intentional and purposeful killing of the unborn child so that the mother can end her responsibility to care for the unborn child.
Given the fact that the majority of abortions involve killing the unborn child prior to even removing it from the womb make your statement that abortion isn't "really about killing the fetus" look as ridiculous as it sounds.
Honestly, and I don't mean this unkindly, but you're fooling yourself.I never looked at abortion that way and the couple of women I know that had an abortion didn't either.
The definition after all is: The ending of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus.
There is nothing there that the killing of the fetus is mandatory.
And I highly doubt that most women that have an abortion actually desire for the fetus to die. Most just want to terminate the pregnancy. If the fetus survives then both sides won, and it can be given up to adoption.
If there is an abortion clinic out there that performs an abortion in such a way so as to aim for the survival of the unborn child, can you let me know where this abortion clinic is?
100% of women who go in for an abortion know that the way an abortion is performed is by a doctor intentionally killing the fetus, and then removing it. Otherwise, they would wait until viability, deliver the baby, and put it up for adoption.
It would be more accurate to say, "ending the pregnancy by killing the baby", because that is how it actually works.The point of being pro-choice is that women should have the legal right to end their pregnancy at any point. Note that I said "ending the pregnancy" and not "killing the baby".
And I didn't doubt you when you said that. But the point is the mother is still going to the doctor knowing that the way her pregnancy is going to end is by the intentional and purposeful killing of her innocent unborn child.As I already stated the women I have talked to didn't want an abortion because they wanted to see the baby dead, they simply wanted to end the pregnancy early.
It would be more accurate to say, "ending the pregnancy by killing the baby", because that is how it actually works.
And I didn't doubt you when you said that. But the point is the mother is still going to the doctor knowing that the way her pregnancy is going to end is by the intentional and purposeful killing of her innocent unborn child.
You can spin it any way you want, but the reality of what's happening won't actually change.
Interesting final thoughts. I haven't discussed at all my position on the legality of abortion. I've only discussed the subject from a moral perspective.I don't need to spin anything. I am very content with how abortion works.
And it's not really a huge issue for me anyway. Abortion is legal where I live and we don't have an extremist religious right wing that pushes to make it illegal.
Good luck to your endeavour for the unborn though I am afraid you are fighting a battle when your side has already lost the war.
My experience (and everyone else's) is with finite, contingently existing objects and beings.
I don't think it is a case that he made morals but that he is morally good by nature.
The very reason we are able to claim that morality is objective is because it stems from the perfect, immutable character of God.
2. A new human being comes into existence at fertilization.
4. Unborn human children are innocent.
Now, whether or not you disagree with all the premises, the view that Christians hold with regard to the morality of abortion is consistent and understandable.
No it doesn’t.Your first statement above conflicts with the second about the origin of morality.
For the majority of human beings, their existence begins at fertilization. For some, such as identical twins, one of them begins their existence at fertilization and the other shortly thereafter.Disagree. See my prior posts about identical twins and triplets coming into existence after fertilization, not at. Human beings are be definition distinct and quantifiable. Because you cannot quantify the number of so-called human beings at conception, the zygote cannot be a human being or beings.
I’m not sure what relevance that has on anything I’ve said. Especially with someone like you who doesn’t even believe in God, that subject would be a rabbit trail and not applicable.They are? At what exact moment do they become guilty of sinning and deserving of hell?
For the majority of human beings, their existence begins at fertilization. For some, such as identical twins, one of them begins their existence at fertilization and the other shortly thereafter.
I don’t expect you as an atheist to agree that killing unborn innocent humans is immoral.
One life becomes 2 or more. It isn't no life becoming two.Disagree. See my prior posts about identical twins and triplets coming into existence after fertilization, not at. Human beings are be definition distinct and quantifiable. Because you cannot quantify the number of so-called human beings at conception, the zygote cannot be a human being or beings.
At a point determined by God.They are? At what exact moment do they become guilty of sinning and deserving of hell?
It has certainly not been consistent. The view that you just explained has only been in place since the early 80s, when the Moral Majority came along and politicized the topic. Before the 80s, Christianity Today, with the blessing of Billy Graham, was publishing pro-choice articles. See this reference here:
The 'biblical view' that's younger than the Happy Meal
...one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:
God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.
[other examples follow...]
[...] They all now believe that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception. They believe this absolutely, unambiguously, firmly, resolutely and loudly. That’s what they believed 10 years ago, and that’s what they believed 20 years ago. But it wasn’t what they believed 30 years ago [article written in 2012]. Thirty years ago they all believed quite the opposite.
So when you tell me about the Christian view, I can remember the 70s and early 80s when this was not the case. Isn't it interesting that so many prominent Christians changed their minds about what the Bible teaches regarding abortion during the 1980s?
Really? That isn't what I read.the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offence
But you're assuming that a zygote or embryo is comparable to a fetus in viability and capacity to live and that it necessarily undermines a woman's agency over her body, neither of which is demonstrable or defensible without serious problems in your science or morality.Sure, this is just a rewording of the violinist argument, which I think fails. Lots of apologists have addressed this line of reasoning:
Unstringing the Violinist | Stand to Reason
Sample Q&A: The Violinist Argument | Pro-Life Theory and Discussion Tactics
I think the Stanford article does a good job of noting the primary reason why your argument fails. That being that "the 'Right to Life' is a right not to be killed. It is not a right not to die."
In other words, in an abortion someone is intentionally and purposefully killing a human being. This is different than a person choosing not to donate one of their organs to save another's life.
A more apt analogy would be the "Cabin in the Blizzard" analogy:
A New Response to the Violinist Argument | Stand to Reason
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?