Do aborted babies go to heaven?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Perhaps some clarifying statements are in order so that we don't talk across each other. I'm going to state my position, and then I'm going to attempt to state your position, based on what I've read. If you could please correct me where I'm misinterpreting you then I think that would be really helpful.

1. At conception, a new and unique human life is created. Sperm, on its own has no potential to become a human, neither does an ovum. However, when a sperm fertilizes an egg, a human life is formed. Under most circumstances, the newly conceived human has 46 chromosomes, half coming from the sperm and half coming from the egg. Human life begins at conception.

2. Biblically, all humans are created in the image of God. We all posses the Imago Dei. All humans possess an inherited sinful nature and are in need of forgiveness that comes through Christ.

I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we are both in agreement with 1 and 2 above. I think our point of disagreement lies in the fact that I think point 2 begins at conception, and you think point 2 begins at birth, am I correct?

It sounds like you create a distinction between a human being, and a human person, where a human being does not possess inherent moral worth, nor do they have a sinful nature, nor do they have a soul. The human being becomes a human person, which possesses inherent moral worth, a sinful nature, and has a soul at birth. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Yes, WELCOME NEW MEMBER! Happy Valentines Day!

I guess I failed to directly respond to this; pardon me.
I think I thought my other postings answered the question you raise here. I think I said you COULD CALL it "a human life," if you were always clear it is NOT a human being.

I WOULD NEVER CALL WHAT IS IN THE WOMB "A HUMAN LIFE," because strictly speaking it is not true.
I am pretty sure there is NO HUMAN BEING prior to birth. To at any such time have a sinful nature - whether there is a soul prior to birth depends on what you mean by "soul," and there is some moral worth in an alive fetus, at least if one wants there to be a child.
(It is very morally positive towards having children to have live fetuses.)

 

[redleghunter]

"Human life begins at conception." So, is the sperm human life, or not?

No, and you know the correct answer. Sperm is not a distinct human life.

 

[redleghunter]

Or taken the other way around, "human life begins at conception. That means the life is a human being and a human person."
You are JUST SAYING "that means the life is a human being (person)."
There is nothing in either the concept "life" or "human" that implies it is a person, a human being. (Need I point out again that the cancer is both but NOT a human being?)
So YOU GET THIS OUT OF THIN AIR.

Pure sophistry.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Pure sophistry.

A fine argument that. Does it mean you acknowledge you have no argument against what I have said about "human life" beginning, in more that one post?
HUMAN LIFE CANNOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION, since HUMAN LIFE exists in the sperm and egg before conception.

That is not sophistry, it is pure truth. Logic that makes sense.

(I imagine you too can't tell the difference between "HUMAN LIFE" AND "A HUMAN LIFE," which is the difference between you and your intact fingernail, which ought to be noticed by anyone having any awareness.)

 

[redleghunter]

A fine argument that. Does it mean you acknowledge you have no argument against what I have said about "human life" beginning, in more that one post?
HUMAN LIFE CANNOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION, since HUMAN LIFE exists in the sperm and egg before conception.

That is not sophistry, it is pure truth. Logic that makes sense.

(I imagine you too can't tell the difference between "HUMAN LIFE" AND "A HUMAN LIFE," which is the difference between you and your intact fingernail, which ought to be noticed by anyone having any awareness.)

Your assertion sperm is human life as a fetus is human life is not an argument. It's just very bad science.

As I pointed out well above thread.

The settled science is a conception a distinct human life, human being is formed.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Your assertion sperm is human life as a fetus is human life is not an argument. It's just very bad science.

As I pointed out well above thread.

The settled science is a conception a distinct human life, human being is formed.

What is it about "human life" that you still don't understand? Do you see that an adjective relates to a noun, modifying the noun?

Hence there is life, and there is a certain kind of life. Human life.

The "life" element means it is alive, right? That it is alive, that it has cell(s) that are alive. We are talking about alive sperm, and alive fetuses, are we not? They are BOTH alive, i.e. the same in the sense of possessing life.

The "human" modifies "life," indicating it is a particular kind of life. Namely that it consists of HUMAN cells, is not some other kind of animal life.
Hence both sperm and the fetus ARE HUMAN LIFE.
What about that very simple use of the English language do you not yet understand?

It's not anything particularly about science, though you would like to use an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, to "prove" your point. It is common knowledge about what the adjective "human" means, and the noun "life" means. NO BIG SCIENCE PROJECT INVOLVED.

The settled common understanding is that; if you want a bit of truth about "settled science," it is that a human being is formed in the womb. It, like any construction of one thing from other materials, DOES NOT EXIST (as a human being) BEFORE IT IS FORMED, before gestation is completed in birth.

 

[St_Worm2]

That is not the criteria for salvation. There are many Atheists who know the Bible far better than many Christians, but that does not mean the Atheist will go to Heaven.

Hi Joe, the law (be it the Law of Moses or simply the law that God writes in each man's heart), combined with the reprobate's ability to understand both the law and the difference between right and wrong, is the Biblical criteria used to judge and condemn them at the Great White Throne .. i.e. Romans 2:12-16. A baby, or a toddler, or an unborn child, cannot be held accountable in the same way an older child or an adult can however because a) they have no knowledge/understanding of the law (any law) and b) they do not have minds that can comprehend the difference between good and evil.

IOW, God has nothing to judge them by.

This, BTW, was one of the subjects that Calvin and Servetus went round and round about, Calvin taking the position that all who die as infants are elect and therefore heaven-bound, while Servetus argued that all who died as infants were bound for Hell, since they had not freely chosen to believe in Christ (even though Servetus knew that their minds were not capable of such a thing at such a young age).

All who are reprobate will be judged and condemned on the basis of their knowledge of the law, and on their clear understanding that they have sinned/transgressed the law (but infants cannot be so judged).

Yours in Christ,
David

Romans 2 (God’s Judgment and the Law)
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
.​

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Hi Joe, the law (be it the Law of Moses or simply the law that God writes in each man's heart), combined with the reprobate's ability to understand both the law and the difference between right and wrong, is the Biblical criteria used to judge and condemn them at the Great White Throne .. i.e. Romans 2:12-16. A baby, or a toddler, or an unborn child, cannot be held accountable in the same way an older child or an adult can however because a) they have no knowledge/understanding of the law (any law) and b) they do not have minds that can comprehend the difference between good and evil.

IOW, God has nothing to judge them by.

This, BTW, was one of the subjects that Calvin and Servetus went round and round about, Calvin taking the position that all who die as infants are elect and therefore heaven-bound, while Servetus argued that all who died as infants were bound for Hell, since they had not freely chosen to believe in Christ (even though Servetus knew that their minds were not capable of such a thing at such a young age).

All who are reprobate will be judged and condemned on the basis of their knowledge of the law, and on their clear understanding that they have sinned/transgressed the law (but infants cannot be judged).

Yours in Christ,
David

Romans 2 (God’s Judgment and the Law)
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
.​

Fine reply David.
I admire your understandings.

So what do you think of what I just said, that a human being is FORMED in a womb, and does not exist before it is formed?

What can be said against that?
I see you still use the terminology "unborn child," so I guess you do not agree, that you think a child exists in a womb before it is created?
Of course if this was all there was to be said, it could be that the fairly developed fetus is some sort of "child" whereas the invisible zygote is nothing like a child?
What do you think?

 

[redleghunter]

What is it about "human life" that you still don't understand? Do you see that an adjective relates to a noun, modifying the noun?

Hence there is life, and there is a certain kind of life. Human life.

The "life" element means it is alive, right? That it is alive, that it has cell(s) that are alive. We are talking about alive sperm, and alive fetuses, are we not? They are BOTH alive, i.e. the same in the sense of possessing life.

The "human" modifies "life," indicating it is a particular kind of life. Namely that it consists of HUMAN cells, is not some other kind of animal life.
Hence both sperm and the fetus ARE HUMAN LIFE.
What about that very simple use of the English language do you not yet understand?

It's not anything particularly about science, though you would like to use an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, to "prove" your point. It is common knowledge about what the adjective "human" means, and the noun "life" means. NO BIG SCIENCE PROJECT INVOLVED.

The settled common understanding is that; if you want a bit of truth about "settled science," it is that a human being is formed in the womb. It, like any construction of one thing from other materials, DOES NOT EXIST (as a human being) BEFORE IT IS FORMED, before gestation is completed in birth.

I recommend you read the quotes from the biology and embryology text books I provided. They are quite clear.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Douglas, we've been down this road before, as I know you know. I remain Pro-Life and believe that the life growing in the womb is a human being, a separate person from his/her mother, and that the intentional destruction of a zygote, embryo or fetus by abortion is murder.

Yours and His,
David

 

[JoeP222w]

By definition the fetus is NOT a baby - check your dictionary.
(Unless it has been distorted by pro-life bias.)

fe·tus
ˈfēdəs/
noun

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
   synonyms: embryo, unborn baby/child

 

[JoeP222w]

God has nothing to judge them by.

They are under the federal headship of Adam (i.e. they are conceived in sin).

All who are reprobate will be judged and condemned on the basis of their knowledge of the law, and on their clear understanding that they have sinned/transgressed the law (but infants cannot be so judged).

Then by this logic, Christians should be the greatest supporter and promoters of Abortion because it is the greatest way to fill Heaven.


Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—


Romans 3:21-28 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— (22) the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (25) whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (26) It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (27) Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. (28) For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

fe·tus
ˈfēdəs/
noun

1. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
   synonyms: embryo, unborn baby/child

Thanks Joe!
So you found a pro-life dictionary - better be sure you always use that one. One that takes that side on the issue, which can be done since there is so much distortion of the language with certain folks always throwing out the blatant contradiction "unborn child" that it has a certain currency.
Even among those not "pro-life" it may be the easy way to refer to what is EXPECTED on the basis of a big belly, etc., but I would say strictly speaking and where one is not easily accepting any sloppiness of words it is not a truly accurate way to represent things.

You may even be able to come up with a dictionary definition of "baby" that has as an alternative or secondary meaning "fetus," but again it's accuracy would at least be very questionable, if one goes beyond easy and perhaps even common ways of speaking.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Hi Douglas, we've been down this road before, as I know you know. I remain Pro-Life and believe that the life growing in the womb is a human being, a separate person from his/her mother, and that the intentional destruction of a zygote, embryo or fetus by abortion is murder.

Yours and His,
David

Thanks David,
Like you indicated I rather knew your position - I was looking for a defense of it.

Like perhaps how does it make sense to KNOW the gestation process is to form a baby, to know that and then speak as though there is a baby already formed when there may not even be ANY flesh and blood?

I.e., do you really believe it makes sense to talk of babies that have no flesh and blood, human BEINGS having no flesh and no blood? E.g. the invisible zygote.
"Beings," ANIMALS, it seems rather funny to say there are invisible animals having no flesh and blood. E.g. human beings, MEMBERS of the human species having NO members? (Try a dictionary definition of "animal," mostly it contrasts it with plants.)

 

[St_Worm2]

Umm...huh?? What? So anyone that wasn't familiar with God's word within their entire lifetime won't be judged because they didn't come to know the word or ever introduced to it??

Romans 2 (God’s Judgment and the Law)
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. ​

"All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law -because- when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law [of Moses]. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."

God judges people on the basis of what they know, not on the basis of what they do not know. Those who have no knowledge of the Law of Moses will be judged by the law they do possess (even if it that law is nothing more the one that was written in their hearts by God).

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[St_Worm2]

They are under the federal headship of Adam (i.e. they are conceived in sin).

Agreed. But God doesn't judge us on the basis of our nature and what we do not know and have not done, rather, He judges us on the basis of what we 'do', according to the knowledge and understanding we possess (which includes both our knowledge and understanding of the law, even if it is the law written upon our hearts alone, and our ability to understand the difference between right and wrong).

Do you really believe God will condemn an infant or an unborn child to burn forever in endless agony and torment in the Lake of Fire on the basis of all the sins they never committed? (again, the Bible never tells us that God judges and condemns us based upon our "nature", does He )

Yours in Christ,
David

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Romans 2 (God’s Judgment and the Law)
12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. ​

"All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law -because- when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law [of Moses]. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."

God judges people on the basis of what they know, not on the basis of what they do not know. Those who have no knowledge of the Law of Moses will be judged by the law they do possess (even if it that law is nothing more the one that was written in their hearts by God).

Yours in Christ,
David

What do you make of Romans 5:12 David?
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by on man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

"ALL MEN," are infants men? Have sinned, or are in sin? One thing it notices is that sin entered into the world; does that relate to the fetus which has NOT entered into the world? Is not the import of Scriptures here in Romans that ALL are in sin, born in sin. Even conceived in sin, i.e. the sin of the mother. She does the conceiving, it is HER conceiving, she is the one with agency to sin.

What I am particularly pointing to is that this SIN NATURE is the nature of all men; if that means all human beings (it would certainly include women, right?), can it include those who have no human agency, i.e. those not born? That is, it is saying among other things that they are NOT men, are not human beings?
Can not the crying and "being difficult" of an infant be considered their sinning, their NOT honoring their parents, etc.? They are in sin like everyone in the world.

Sorry David, I seem to not have gotten this posted right.

Agreed. But God doesn't judge us on the basis of our nature and what we do not know and have not done, rather, He judges us on the basis of what we 'do', according to the knowledge and understanding we possess (which includes both our knowledge and understanding of the law, even if it is the law written upon our hearts alone, and our ability to understand the difference between right and wrong).

Do you really believe God will condemn an infant or an unborn child to burn forever in endless agony and torment in the Lake of Fire on the basis of all the sins they never committed? (again, the Bible never tells us that God judges and condemns us based upon our "nature", does He )

Yours in Christ,
David

I think our sin nature as indicated by Romans 5:12 above IS the basis of God's condemnation. If we are NOT covered by the blood of Christ.
Are we to think that what goes on in Hell is anything God attends to? What ends up there is NONE OF HIS; would not the encompassing nature of God be alien there, such that He would not even look upon it?
Or what - he cares that the roasting of those NOT HIS OWN goes on? When it is "concluded in judgment"?

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi Douglas, the case that St. Paul labors to build in the first three chapters of Romans culminates in Romans 3:23, that all, both Jew and Greek, have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That all who are not "in Christ" will be lost on the basis of their trespasses and sins, whether they be Jew or Greek, and whether they possess the Law of Moses as the basis for that judgment or not .. see Romans 2:12-16 from my earlier post above.

I believe that infants, toddlers and the unborn who die are exempt from judgment and condemnation because they do not know, nor can they understand the law (even the one that has been written in their hearts by God), because their minds are not developed enough for that level of comprehension, not even close. They also have no way of understanding the difference between right and wrong (nor can they understand their need for a Savior), therefore God has no basis upon which to judge them (none that the Bible speaks of anyway, unless I have missed something?).

All babies who die are among the elect.

Gotta run, but I'll return later this afternoon or evening and we can talk more then if you'd like to.

Your and His,
David

 

[JoeP222w]

Thanks Joe!
So you found a pro-life dictionary - better be sure you always use that one. One that takes that side on the issue, which can be done since there is so much distortion of the language with certain folks always throwing out the blatant contradiction "unborn child" that it has a certain currency.
Even among those not "pro-life" it may be the easy way to refer to what is EXPECTED on the basis of a big belly, etc., but I would say strictly speaking and where one is not easily accepting any sloppiness of words it is not a truly accurate way to represent things.

You may even be able to come up with a dictionary definition of "baby" that has as an alternative or secondary meaning "fetus," but again it's accuracy would at least be very questionable, if one goes beyond easy and perhaps even common ways of speaking.

As far as I understand, dictionaries are not classified as "pro-life", so I really don't understand you comments.

Regardless, if you feel that life cannot be clearly defined in the womb, it is infinitely better to preserve life in the womb than to destroy life in a most brutal and horrific way.

 

[JoeP222w]

He judges us on the basis of what we 'do',

Matthew 5:27-28 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' (28) But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

God judges our actions, yes. But God also judges the heart as shown above. Actions come from the heart. A child is born/conceived with an unregenerate heart, he or she has to be made a new creation by the grace of God.

Do you really believe God will condemn an infant or an unborn child to burn forever in endless agony and torment in the Lake of Fire on the basis of all the sins they never committed?

God's grace cannot be demanded. We are saved by God's grace, but grace that is demanded is not grace at all.


John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

You don't seem to grasp the fundamental nature of man. Man is not innocent from conception. His nature is that of sin. As you yourself said you agreed that we are under the federal headship of Adam.

the Bible never tells us that God judges and condemns us based upon our "nature", does He

Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

and John 3:18 again, God does indeed judge by our nature.