tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post9042494869287088200..comments2009-08-19T08:27:26.690-05:00JThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07870180415697038018noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-41292880499226152962009-08-16T16:19:26.204-05:002009-08-16T16:19:26.204-05:00CT, <br /><br />Your argument, distilled, is that the consequences of a sinful action are better than the consequences of an action consistent with God&#39;s revealed will. <br /><br />An almost identical argument was made by the serpent to Eve in Genesis. The serpent argues the consequences of sin will be in Eve&#39;s best interest because she will &quot;be like God, knowing good and evil.&quot; Gen. 3:5. <br /><br />This is my last post on this topic with you. The last word is yours.soxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01809873229127099389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-35953062413652228792009-08-16T12:12:41.425-05:002009-08-16T12:12:41.425-05:00Sox,<br /><br />I forgot that President Obama lifted the Mexico City Policy and I was not aware of subsequent &quot;riders&quot; attached subsequent to the Hyde amendment to allow for federal funding of abortions through Medicaid. Thanks for the correction.CRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-69976118341674874112009-08-16T10:27:39.656-05:002009-08-16T10:27:39.656-05:00CT,<br /><br />Are you a Christian? Do you believe and trust in Jesus Christ for the salvation of your soul?<br /><br />If so, then I suggest that you consider what the Bible says about the sanctity of all life and submit your theology to the text.<br /><br />If not, then I suggest that you consider what the Bible says about sin, God&#39;s coming judgment, and the way to forgiveness of our sin. You have greater things to worry about than arguing over a blog post--i.e. your eternal situation.<br /><br />I have no interest in joining this abortion discussion. I will gladly join a Gospel discussion.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Dan CzachDanielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18010524794484659718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-69653661296550420222009-08-16T05:26:08.492-05:002009-08-16T05:26:08.492-05:00CT,<br /><br />You can talk as much as you like about resources etc. but that does not explain why it&#39;s &quot;<i>impolite</i> to talk about the killing of unborn humans&quot; while being acceptable to condemn cruelty to dogs. Accordingly, your position is simply failing to answer the original post, instead, each move you make looks like you&#39;re changing the subject.<br /><br />You may well be feeling your position is not being assailed because it is impregnable. In fact, the reason no one is nailing you is because your position (as an answer to the post) is <i>entirely</i> unclear. You have never stated it, and no conclusion <i>necessarily</i> follows from the argument you first put, so your position cannot deduced either.<br /><br />I for one thought you were arguing at first that abortion wasn&#39;t wrong. Now you seem to be saying abortion is sinful but that we should concentrate on protesting against other things. I have already provided an argument to show that this position, could be used to allow us to turn a blind eye to certain kinds of infanticide. I don&#39;t see that you have answered this.<br /><br />In other words, no one is even in a position to address your argument, which is why people are tackling what they take to be its false conclusions (only to find that the conclusion they thought you were drawing isn&#39;t your conclusion after all).<br /><br />So, if you&#39;re serious about discussing your position, tell us what it is, and as carefully and formally as you can present an argument to support your position. At the moment you look like a card player who never loses (but equally can never win) because he has hidden the crucial cards up his sleave.<br /><br />You might also moderate your language to facilitate debate. You cannot logically accuse me of a &quot;second error&quot; when you have failed to make your first accusation of error stick.Alberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-62849913165924771962009-08-16T01:54:42.512-05:002009-08-16T01:54:42.512-05:00Sox, perhaps you are being a bit heavy-handed in claiming that if I suggest that salvation can be lost then I &quot;express rejection of Scripture and God.&quot; Seriously? Would you also say that I reject Scripture and God if I say that <i>faith</i> can be lost? That is, if someone suggests that faith can be lost, is she rejecting Scripture and God?<br /><br />And although this is all quite interesting (and I&#39;d happily continue our discussion of it), it&#39;s fairly tangential. You&#39;ve yet to squarely face the argument I mentioned at the outset.CThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06423555820700758534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-45920596743948070902009-08-16T01:43:56.356-05:002009-08-16T01:43:56.356-05:00I read Scripture as saying salvation cannot be lost. Christ chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame. I don&#39;t believe anything can change that. <br /><br />God&#39;s revealed will is exactly equivalent to what is in myself, the unborn children, and everyone else&#39;s best interest. It is the gold standard.<br /><br />Arguing otherwise is an express rejection of Scripture and God because you lift sinful actions above what God has declared to be right and just.soxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01809873229127099389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-15987939288073092132009-08-16T01:16:31.222-05:002009-08-16T01:16:31.222-05:00Sox, <br /><br />You curiously deny that your best interests could ever be promoted by a circumstance in which someone sins against you. <br /><br />For the sake of argument, let&#39;s assume a scenario in which the following is true. Though you are presently a Christian, tomorrow morning you will lose your faith just prior to dying by a sudden heart attack. So, if you are murdered tonight, your early death will have these consequences for you: on the negative side, you will miss out on one night&#39;s sleep. On the positive side, you will avoid eternal separation from God and eternal suffering in hell. (Just to be tidy, let&#39;s suppose that the murderer would kill you by secretly poisoning your dinner, which, without even spoiling your dinner, merely triggers an earlier heart attack.)<br /><br />In this scenario, wouldn&#39;t you say that it is in your best interest to die the earlier death? Remember, we are supposing that <i>if you are not murdered tonight</i>, then you will lose your faith in the morning and then die by heart attack and go to hell. Would you be willing to concede that - in such a scenario - it would be in your best interest to be murdered? If not, <i>why</i> not?CThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06423555820700758534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-9999751699003469482009-08-16T00:55:05.085-05:002009-08-16T00:55:05.085-05:00CR,<br /><br />Federal funds do fund abortions through medicaid in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother&#39;s life is threatened (construed broadly). <br /><br />In addition, federal funds go towards funding abortions overseas due to Pres. Obama&#39;s lifting of the Mexico City policy. <br /><br />And planned parenthood receives most of its funding from federal funds for &quot;family planning.&quot;soxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01809873229127099389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-34474388003232129752009-08-16T00:42:47.087-05:002009-08-16T00:42:47.087-05:00I respectfully disagree with you CT. <br /><br />I trust that it will always be in my best interest for someone to treat me in a manner consistent with God&#39;s righteousness, as opposed to a way that violates God&#39;s perfect righteous standard.soxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01809873229127099389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-59223872481712458302009-08-16T00:27:08.288-05:002009-08-16T00:27:08.288-05:00Raymond&#39;s article was good. There&#39;s one inaccuracy and that is when he said there is federal funding for abortions. There is not. Federal funding of abortions is illegal by the Hyde amendment. Obamacare would amend federal law to allow/compel federal funding for abortions.CRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01912897040503058967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-64622201169563995102009-08-15T21:34:02.690-05:002009-08-15T21:34:02.690-05:00Hi Sox, <br /><br /><i>&quot;Sin can never be in anyone&#39;s best interest.&quot;</i><br /><br />Here it&#39;s important to distinguish <i>sinning</i> from <i>being sinned against</i>. Although it may be plausible that sinning is never in anyone&#39;s best interest (if only because of divine retribution), it is less plausible that a person&#39;s best interests aren&#39;t ever promoted by a case in which he or she is sinned against. In particular, death may be in the best interest of the unborn baby, for the reasons suggested above - even if that death involves being sinned against. <br /><br />As for your other concern, it is true that adult Christians are in a different position from unborn fetuses. As an adult Christian, not only are you already a Christian, you also arguably have some control over the maintenance of that status. Moreover, you have presumably also developed many other projects and relationships that are incompatible with your sudden death. <br /><br />I appreciate your comments, even though they do not contravene the idea that abortion is in the unborn baby&#39;s best interest.CThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06423555820700758534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-48139120954080504982009-08-15T20:55:49.734-05:002009-08-15T20:55:49.734-05:00I am a Christian. If I die right now, I will go to heaven. <br /><br />It does not follow that if someone sinfully kills me, that it is in my best interest. <br /><br />If I live, I can continue striving for a life of greater holiness and sanctification, trying to store up treasures in heaven. <br /><br />Sin, by definition, is contrary to God&#39;s revealed will. Sin can never be in anyone&#39;s best interest.soxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01809873229127099389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-61644560333230669412009-08-15T17:09:23.695-05:002009-08-15T17:09:23.695-05:00<b>Albert&#39;s Second Error</b><br /><br />Albert&#39;s second error is to suppose that it is irrelevant that abortion is in the best interests of the unborn so long as abortion is still sinful. <br /><br />Why should Albert suppose this? Perhaps he thinks that the only question regarding abortion is the individual&#39;s question of whether or not to perform an abortion. But if this is what Albert is thinking, then he is seriously confused. After all, there are also these questions, among other: <br /><br />Should abortion be criminalized and coercively prohibited by government?<br /><br />To what extent should the church, or an individual Christian, prioritize the effort to oppose abortion? (We have, after all, limited resources and there are many other kinds of sinful social problems.)<br /><br />Does it make sense for Christians to be more outraged by abortion than by &quot;self-abuse&quot; among married Amish men? Alternatively: does it make sense for Christians to be more outraged by abortion than child sex-slave trafficking? <br /><br />All these questions, as well as those asked by Erik Raymond, are not obviously answered by simply determining whether or not abortion is sinful. It is presumably quite relevant that abortion is distinct from many other sorts of sins in that it is in the best interest of its most direct victim, the fetus. We should perhaps count abortion among the so-called &quot;victimless&quot; crimes. (In fact, however, abortion may overwhelmingly <i>benefit</i> the fetus.)CThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06423555820700758534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-33740997191233762472009-08-15T16:43:07.841-05:002009-08-15T16:43:07.841-05:00CT, you write,<br /><br /><i>Albert&#39;s error is to suppose that any action that is in the baby&#39;s interest is &quot;acceptible to God&quot;.</i><br /><br />I did not make that error, I assumed you were making that error because otherwise your argument would not demonstrate anything of use. As you put it yourself <br /><br /><i>I only argue that abortion is in the unborn baby&#39;s best interest. I&#39;ve never argued that abortion isn&#39;t wrong or sinful. Thus, though it would be silly to oppose abortion for the sake of of the unborn, one may still oppose abortion for the sake of piety.</i><br /><br />Obviously, if abortion is sinful, an evangelical cannot do it, even if could be shown to be in the interests of the child. Accordingly, for your argument to achieve anything it must show that abortion isn&#39;t sinful. And if it is sinful the original post is correct: it is irrational to condemn cruelty to dogs while regarding talk of abortion as impolite.Alberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-42439346662672839422009-08-15T16:01:18.107-05:002009-08-15T16:01:18.107-05:00Thus, hence and heretofor......barfJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492992934732122869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-62229491138268004022009-08-15T15:46:59.093-05:002009-08-15T15:46:59.093-05:00<b>Albert and Jake</b>:<br /><br />Each of you make a similar error. Albert&#39;s error is to suppose that any action that is in the baby&#39;s interest is &quot;acceptible to God&quot;. Jake&#39;s error is to suppose that any action in the best interests of its objects is an act of &quot;Christlike love.&quot; <br /><br />Here&#39;s the basic problem: the fact that an action is in someone’s best interest doesn’t mean that the action is acceptible to God or Christlike. It doesn&#39;t even mean that the action in question isn’t wrong, or that the action isn&#39;t sinful. Consider an example of action action that is in someone&#39;s best interest, even though it is wrong: it may be in my best interest for someone to sever my internet connection (I could be getting more work done), but this doesn’t mean that it is morally permissible for anyone to do so. <br /><br />Readers can probably easily think of many additional examples of an action that is in someone’s best interest, even though the action isn’t justified or morally permissible.<br /><br />Thus, I only argue that abortion is in the unborn baby&#39;s best interest. I&#39;ve never argued that abortion isn&#39;t wrong or sinful. Thus, though it would be silly to oppose abortion for the <i>sake of of the unborn</i>, one may still oppose abortion for the <i>sake of piety</i>.CThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06423555820700758534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-76711133441353769782009-08-15T15:37:23.898-05:002009-08-15T15:37:23.898-05:00<b>Greglong</b>, what exactly do you mean in saying that my argument has no biblical basis? Would you say that premises B and C have no biblical basis (some would be quite surprised)? I&#39;ve already shown we can arrive at an answer for Erik with or without premise A. <br /><br />Moreover, what would you say about theorems of arithmetic or geometry. Are these also &quot;without biblical basis&quot;?CThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06423555820700758534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-51310306233901299882009-08-15T15:27:05.881-05:002009-08-15T15:27:05.881-05:00CT,<br /><br />Consider your argument logically:<br /><br />If abortion is in the best interests of its victims<br /><br />and if Christlike love acts in the best interest of its object [ see 1 Cor. 13]<br /><br />then abortion is acting in Christlike love toward the fetus<br /><br />which is clearly false.<br /><br />QEDJakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15848648146146609673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-21647484121303505592009-08-15T07:14:49.733-05:002009-08-15T07:14:49.733-05:00Thank you, JT, for this good reminder. It is a crazy, mixed-up, sick society.<br /><br />Folks, PLEASE stop responding to CT. He brings this argument up in every post on abortion, even though it has no biblical basis.greglonghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05514850772020363684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-61463063731893083882009-08-15T06:58:33.932-05:002009-08-15T06:58:33.932-05:00CT,<br /><br />According to the Book of Common Prayer (1662) &quot;It is certain by God&#39;s Word, that Children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.&quot;<br /><br />Now if I&#39;ve understood your argument, an evangelical who believes that doctrine would have to regard killing a baptized child as in its interests and therefore as an action (presumably) acceptable to God. But this conclusion is patently contrary to the Commandments (quite apart from anything else).<br /><br />This raises a further problem, with your argument. It fails to take account of the fact that sin is something that afflicts and damages the one sinning too, again, quite apart from the dishonour done to the Creator.Alberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12407051721186824991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-43271292876180905002009-08-15T00:05:01.441-05:002009-08-15T00:05:01.441-05:00Catherine, are you being ironic? <br /><br />The closest thing to Molechian influences I&#39;ve seen in the church is in those Christians who think that (some) human fetuses are abominable to God, deserving of eternal suffering. Fortunately, there are plenty of Christians who do regard the interests of the unborn, even if in a misguided way. The sad fact is that many evangelical Christians are simply too biased by right-wing political issues to view abortion through the eyes of faith.CThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06423555820700758534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-30341922108405773612009-08-14T23:51:46.731-05:002009-08-14T23:51:46.731-05:00&quot;Many evangelicals&quot;? I&#39;ve never heard <i>any</i> evangelical make that argument. God&#39;s thunderous fury at sacrifices to Molech are evidence enough of whether that argument would have any traction with him!Catherinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10458268227280746133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-8961547277380723982009-08-14T23:12:56.748-05:002009-08-14T23:12:56.748-05:00Of course, some will reject idea A, affirming instead that unborn babies deserve <i>far worse</i> than abortion. But this still provides a ready answer to Erik&#39;s questions: such people can say that the dogs, unlike the fetuses, presumably <i>aren&#39;t</i> deserving of far worse brutality.CThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06423555820700758534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194673.post-48169905555652728862009-08-14T22:29:16.241-05:002009-08-14T22:29:16.241-05:00Many evangelicals have a good answer to Erik&#39;s question: abortion is in the best interests of its victims; dog fighting is not. <br /><br />This seems to follow from three ideas, widely held among evangelicals:<br /><br />A. God does not condemn unborn babies to hell.<br /><br />B. God does condemn some adults to hell.<br /><br />C. Hell is a place of eternal torment and everlasting separation from God.CThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06423555820700758534noreply@blogger.com