1

As a former fetus myself, I salute your efforts at a fetal survival guide. Of course, the best advice is to be lucky. My grandmother said she would have aborted my mom had it been legal, so I feel quite lucky to be here at all.

2

Boy I wish I could have read that 46 years ago when it might have helped me. ;-)

3

If evangelicals really believe that aborted fetuses go straight to heaven, then it seems that being aborted would be preferable to being born for a brief life followed by the high probability of spending all of eternity in hell.

Can any Christian explain to me why it would be better in the long run for a fetus to be born?

4

Can any Christian explain to me why it would be better in the long run for a fetus to be born?

I will after you have explained why it is you have yet to commit suicide. After all, if you find the future so bleak for any child then why do you continue to endure it?

5

The future is only bleak for the fetus if hell is real and most people are going there. Fortunately, hell is a made-up place, invented by the Zorastrians and Greeks, picked by Judaism in the 3rd century BC and thereby transmitted to Christianity.

I don't commit suicide because I believe that this life is the only one we've got, and I enjoy my life. I'm looking forward to a delicious, yet low calorie lunch in a few minutes, sex with my wife tonight and a fun weekend with my family at a Renaissance Fair.

Okay, now it's your turn.

6

ex-preacher, with your logic, Churches would install gas chambers adjacent to their sanctuaries. This way, people who are "saved" could just immediately be sent to the "fellowship hall" to be executed!

I think the best direct answer to your question is that we think killing innocent people is wrong.

How about a question for you: Why is the claim that a fetus has value any more religious than saying a 10-year old has value?

7

What's most important to remember is that the decision as to whether or not a woman is to carry a pregnancy to term should be yours, not hers.

8

It's not my logic, Mark, it's Christianity's. From the Christian view, it would be better for adults to die early as Christians than to live a long life and go to hell. Do you disagree?

I'm not asking if killing innocent people or fetuses is wrong. What I'm asking is whether, from the fetus' view, being born and going to hell is better than being aborted and going to heaven.

When did I say that the claim a fetus has value is religious?

You bring up a new issue: is the life of a ten year old worth more than the life of a fetus? That's a valid question and brings up the broader question of when personhood begins. How about we have that discussion some other time so we can focus on the other issues already raised?

9

ex-preacher,

Christianity's logic does not work the way you suggest. Your implication is that God is the cause of people choosing to live separate from Him in Hell. That is not Christianity's logic.

Christianity's logic is that it is God's Will for all people to spend eternity with Him in a world without evil, and it is His Nature that He loves each person fully and unconditionally...

Where there is choice there is the freedom to do otherwise. Where there is heat, there is cold. Where there is light, there is darkness. Some choose darkness.

The Apostle Paul proclaimed it this way to the scholars assembled at Mars Hill, as recorded in Acts 17:

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

To kill people in the name of preventing their possibility of choosing darkness is unjust and cruel because we are depriving them of their ultimate gift: free will.

If we truly value the fetus, then we will not try to impose our will upon him or her, but rather we will love and care for this child and truly live out the love given to us by our Master...being living testimonies to His nature and His Will for us. That way, when that child arrives at eternity, they will do so with full knowledge of the One who has called them!

10

Interesting sermon, Mark, but you didn't answer my question: From the fetus' view, is being born and going to hell better than being aborted and going to heaven?

11

ex-preacher,

Thank you for the compliment. I submit to you that I did answer the question: You are imposing a false dilemma. "Better" here is defined only by the questioner and assumes that spending eternity in heaven is a superior eternal arrangement than hell would be. In a Christian worldview this definition is not automatic, because justice for the fetus is truncated by the definition.

In otherwords, a fetus has not had the opportunity to reject God's offer of an eternal relationship with Him, hence it is not automatically better in the sense of justice. For to declare it "better" is to declare man's will has no value in the equation, while Christianity has always agreed that man's will does have value (albeit, there has been debate to the level of that value...see Calvinist vs. Armenian vs. Lutheran positions).

Regardless, orthodox Christianity has always posited that we trust in God's Justice and Grace in a matter where a person is killed before they've had the same opportunity you and I have had to stay within God's Grace or to reject it.

12

ex-preacher,

Thank you for the compliment. I submit to you that I did answer the question: You are imposing a false dilemma. "Better" here is defined only by the questioner and assumes that spending eternity in heaven is a superior eternal arrangement than hell would be. In a Christian worldview this definition is not automatic, because justice for the fetus is truncated by the definition.

In otherwords, a fetus has not had the opportunity to reject God's offer of an eternal relationship with Him, hence it is not automatically better in the sense of justice. For to declare it "better" is to declare man's will has no value in the equation, while Christianity has always agreed that man's will does have value (albeit, there has been debate to the level of that value...see Calvinist vs. Armenian vs. Lutheran positions).

Regardless, orthodox Christianity has always posited that we trust in God's Justice and Grace in a matter where a person is killed before they've had the same opportunity you and I have had to stay within God's Grace or to reject it.

13

Huh? You're not sure if an eternity in heaven is better than an eternity in hell if the person didn't get to choose? So are you saying that an eternity in hell with a choice is better than an eternity in heaven with no choice?

Slightly related question: will free will exist in heaven? That is, can people and/or angels still choose to reject God?

14

Being born AND going to heaven is the will of God. I will pray for you ex-preacher. You seem like such a knowledgeable and interesting person. I would love to have a Starbucks with you. I am sure God has a plan for you and my prayer will be that you listen to Him and use that wonderful gift of knowledge and reason to His glory and the salvation of so many of those unbgorn to come. PSALM 9:1

15

Any bets on how long before JohnW brings up Iraq and Christian hypocrisy?

Or will he be satisfied with Ex-Preachers strawman?

16

The answer to Ex-Preacher's question is the same for a fetus as it is for an infant.

And yet, one supposes Ex-Preacher knows why we don't go around killing our own children.

17

ex-preacher is just a troll; he's only trying to make us mad. Why are you doing this, Ex-P? No hobbies, eh?

18

My standard response to someone who says "I'll pray for you" is to smile and say "Good, and I'll think for you." But you seem like a nice person, Born twice, so I won't use that line. I would encourage you to instead spend your time trying to make this world a better place. And instead of spending money at Starbucks, give that money to Heifer International or another humanitarian group.

You might know, Baggi, that more than a few parents have killed their infants or children thinking that that would save them from hell. And, according to most Christians' theology, it would. Of course, the parents are condeming themselves to hell (unless they repent, in which case heaven is still a go). Under that type of twisted thinking, though, it would be logical and loving to sacrifice one's own eternal destiny to insure the salvation of one's children.

19

As an evangelical, I think ex-preacher has presented a logical hurdle. Say what you want about respecting someone's freewill, but having the choice taken out of one's hands that is of such eternal consequence would be preferred if it was my life hanging in the balance.

Yank me back from walking in the street before the bus runs me over.

Knock my hand away before it touches the hot stove.

I would suggest to ex-preacher that aborted babies in heaven is an assumption and not something that we can actually prove exegetically from the biblical text.

Oh, some will try to give you 2 Sam 12, but that doesn't prove what some might have you think.

The Westminster Confession makes the claim that elect infants dying in infancy are good to go. The beauty of that is that it's not all inclusive, but one can think that his/her baby is okay with the assumption of being elect of God. Others assume all babies are elect.

This gets into the issue of the alleged age of accounability, whereby one is okay up to that point, but afterward can be damned. This may be an arbitrary age (e.g., 12), or dependent on the child (i.e., when he/she understands certain things).

If we're honest, I think we evangelicals have to say that we hope aborted babies go to heaven and we are confident the judge of all the earth will do right. We just can't presume that we know what right/good is and assume God has to do that.

The key is that depravity is such that God doesn't owe anyone a trip to heaven (not even babies who are depraved as the rest of us, just without the faculties to show such yet; that's part of personhood), nor does He owe anyone even the opportunity to hear the good news, which is the exit ramp on the highway to hell. (HT AC/DC)

Still, I'm not advocating killing babies, but ex-preacher raises a great question about it. Is the mom in Houston who drowned her 5 kids responsible for sending them to heaven? If so, could she see herself as a hero who sacrificed her own temporal freedom on this planet for their eternal abode?

If the abortion industry in the country puts 1.5 million in heaven each year, does lessen or heighten the motivation to stop it? That wouldn't make evil good, since the ends don't justify the means, but I wonder if this lessens the heinous nature of the act for some.

God can use evil for good and always does in the life of the Christian (e.g., Rom 8:28), but I wonder what the practical/ethical considerations are in this regard.

Thanks for an interesting diversion, ex-preacher.

20

And instead of spending money at Starbucks, give that money to Heifer International or another humanitarian group.

Oh, come on, ex, you didn't have to say "Starbucks". Say what you really meant... "the offering plate". You wouldn't be the first... I've heard that line a million times before. This, despite the fact that study after study shows believers are far more generous in their charitable giving than non-believers.

If you really think that giving charitably is the way to make the world a better place, they why don't you encourage people to learn from the Christians of the world?

21

If evangelicals really believe that aborted fetuses go straight to heaven

This is not a settled viewpoint amongst evangelicals.

Some may believe that, but even many that do admit that it's wishful thinking and not a case they can really make biblically. Evangelicals are honor bound to believe what the Bible says, so if a case can't be made biblically for a certain theological viewpoint, an evangelical is going out on a limb to believe it.

22

"Evangelicals are honor bound to believe what the Bible says, so if a case can't be made biblically for a certain theological viewpoint, an evangelical is going out on a limb to believe it." - J. J.

Well said, J. J. That's nicely put and I just may quote you sometime, with proper attribution, of course.

23

Gunny gave an honest but, I think, unsatisfactory answer to ex's question about the fate of those who die in infancy. (Others here simply saw fit to attack ex and not answer his question.)

I take it that Gunny, when he talks of depravity, takes the Augustinian view: infants bear the taint of original sin, and though without the ability to exercise their corrupt will, yet deserve damnation. (Perhaps he only means to bring it up, not endorse it. I say this out of charity, for Augustine's views seems absurd to me.)

Surely this must be rejected. Infants do not deserve eternal damnation. But if they get a "free pass" to heaven, then it seems that ex is right and they should be killed.

Can we break this dilemma? St. Iraneus broke it. He took the minority view that we are not judged after death (at least not the death that ends this life). Rather there is a life after this one, he thought, and in it we continue to make (or not, as the case may be) progress in our santification. The state we achieve at our death is not the state that determines our fate. Rather that state is subject to change in the life to follow. We can grow worse; we can grow better.

For Iraneus, life is a bit like a classroom in which we must learn the lessons of love. When someone dies, their education does not come to an end. Rather at worst it is interrupted. So, then, we do not save infants from hell when we kill them. Rather we force an exit from the "classroom" in which God has placed them. We thus likely deny them a good opportunity, a God-chosen opportunity, to learn.

I know that this view is not orthodox, but I would suggest that we not think it heretical. Indeed, from my point of view, it is necessary if Christianity is not to descend into absurdity.

24

Surely this must be rejected. Infants do not deserve eternal damnation.

Why not? Everyone deserves eternal damnation. Thank God for His grace that He doesn't give everyone what they deserve. Why do you see infants as a special class?

Salvation is a gift of God... "not by works so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-10). You seem to be saying that an infant doesn't deserve damnation because he/she hasn't had a chance to work his way out of it. Well, no one can work their way out of it.

I trust an omniscient, perfect God to righteously judge the hearts of everyone. I include infants in that statement... I might not clearly understand how He judges them, but He knows better than I do how they ought to be judged. St. Iraneus's theory is pure human speculation (and wishful thinking)... not a biblical argument or proper Christian theology. I simply could not rest my hat on it.

25

JJ,

The doctrine of the damnation of innocents is Biblical speculation, too. But from the point of view of plain common sense (and this too should guide us) it's absurd. Why don't they deserve damnation? They've done nothing wrong. One can be rightly held responsible only for acts freely done, but the state that one is in when one enters the world is not something one has freely done. Indeed it's not something one could do. It is, as it were, there to begin.

Would you have us believe that one can be held responsible for something that was not one's choice, something that preceded all choice, something that we had not power to make otherwise? I thought Christiantiy was supposed to be reasonable.

26

The doctrine of the damnation of innocents is Biblical speculation, too.

There is no damnation of innocents, because there are no innocents. (Rom. 3:12 "There is none righteous, no not one", Rom. 3:23 "All have sinned an fall short of the glory of God"). Unless fetuses/babies aren't human, I don't see how these verses don't apply to them.

But from the point of view of plain common sense (and this too should guide us) it's absurd.

It's a side point, but an important one. God's ways are not our ways. There is much "absurdity" in the Bible... from worldwide floods and talking donkeys, to a baby born of a virgin, and a man dead for 3 days who rose again. Common sense can only get you so far. Hitler, Mao, Lenin, et al, all thought their views made common sense too. Jeremiah 17:9 says "The heart is deceitful above all else". I choose God's revelation over my own common sense when the two are at odds.

Would you have us believe that one can be held responsible for something that was not one's choice, something that preceded all choice

Franklin, I'm guessing that you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. That's your right, but it sounds like by your own admission you hold that position via your own thought processes and not via biblical exegesis. So, how do you reconcile this position with not aborting every single baby that is to be born? Surely you're damning people to Hell by not advocating killing them before they're born?

27

I meant to add one other thing about supposedly innocent fetuses/babies/children... I think there's generally (even in the Church) a great misunderstanding of sin. The word "sin" has its basis in a word in archery that means "missing the mark". People so often seem to think of it merely as "some bad action God didn't like", when sin is actually a state of being. It's missing the mark of perfection. No one deserves to go to Heaven simply because they are not perfect. They miss the mark, and therefore they fall short of God's glory, and therefore they are in a state of sin. That's why I think a pre-born human is just as in need of a savior as any of the rest of us. And just like adults, I think some will be saved and some will not.

To give an example, this oversimplifies it, but may show you where I'm going with this. God, being omniscient, looks at an aborted fetus one day. He knows that baby's heart, perfectly (because He's omniscient). He may know that baby has a heart that would have turned him into the next Hitler had he lived. God's well within his right to damn that child. (Again, this example may be oversimplified, but fill in the details to suit and you may see what I'm driving at).

28

ex-preacher: So are you saying that an eternity in hell with a choice is better than an eternity in heaven with no choice?

Again, you misunderstand Christianity's position here. Your use of the word "better" implies an objective standard that you must define...and my point is that a generic definition truncates justice.

Obviously God wants all people to join him for eternity, but never against their will.

Your follow up question: "...can people [in heaven] and/or angels still choose to reject God?"

Christianity teaches that once this world is gone away, rebellion, sin and evil will pass with it. There will no longer be any absence of heat...no longer any absence of light. As a result, there will be no rejection of God, because all of those who wanted to reject him will have done so and are free to live out eternity separate from Him.

That is why free will is so important in this world...to fulfill all Justice.

29

I think God has some flexibility. Notice Luke 12:
47 "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
Also, remember that teachers will be held to a stricter standard. I think God wants to be regarded as a person, not a set of laws, not a formula, (pray this way, get results). I hope this doesn't sound liberal, I'm actually quite conservative, but I trust the awesome God on this one.

30

Franklin Mason asks (of JJ):
Would you have us believe that one can be held responsible for something that was not one's choice, something that preceded all choice, something that we had not power to make otherwise? I thought Christiantiy was supposed to be reasonable.

Well, I don't know about the reasonable part, but we actually are held responsible for something we didn't do, the sin of Adam as is explained in Romans 5:12-21. Because we are "in Adam" we get credited to our accounts what he did, namely sin. So, we are all born sinners who subsequently sin.

This is the notion of corporate solidarity, what one does (especially the leader) affects the whole. For example, when a lineman jumps offsides, the whole team is penalized 5 yards.

You have to embrace this notion of imputation, because it is the basis of salvation, for in that same section of Romans it is made clear that the flip side is that for those "in Christ" we get credited to our accounts what Jesus did.

This second imputation builds on and corrects the first, for those who are "in Christ" by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.

31

JJ says:

I choose God's revelation over my own common sense when the two are at odds.

The only way that one can know that the Bible is the word of God is to rely upon one or another (or many) principles that seem clear to one - moral, historical, etc. Thus if one simply discards plain common sense so that one might cleave to the Bible, one has actually discarded that which allows one to know that it's the word of God.

Franklin, I'm guessing that you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin. That's your right, but it sounds like by your own admission you hold that position via your own thought processes and not via biblical exegesis. So, how do you reconcile this position with not aborting every single baby that is to be born? Surely you're damning people to Hell by not advocating killing them before they're born?

There is no Hell into which sinners are cast. People suffer, both in this life and in the next; but that is their choice, and hope always exists for a return to God.

32

JJ says God, being omniscient, looks at an aborted fetus one day. He knows that baby's heart, perfectly (because He's omniscient). He may know that baby has a heart that would have turned him into the next Hitler had he lived. God's well within his right to damn that child.

From this it follows that the baby, if it had lived, would not have been free not to commit great evil. But if this is so, it cannot be held responsible for what it will do (or would do had it lived). Not free means not responsible; and if not responsible, then punishment is unjust.

These are bedrock moral principles - no freedom > no responsibility > no just punishment. They are as clear as anything can be, and yet it seems you mean to deny them. This looks to me like a reductio ad absurdum of your moral/religious views.

Think of it this way. Say you are in conversation with a intelligent, serious student of religion who at present has not religious commitments. Would you say to her that God damns infants to hell for things over which they had no power?
Wouldn't she shake her head and conclude that, wherever the truth might be, it is not here? Christianity is supposed to appeal to the whole of the person - the heart and the mind; and yet you make it out to be completely unreasonable. This does real harm to the faith, for it makes Christians look deeply irrational.

33

Ex-Preacher:

there are two ways to answer your question about why isn't it better to kill fetuses/infants before they sin so as to assure Heaven rather than Hell. In both cases I will start from the idea that infants are sinless and get into Heaven automatically (which I don't believe and neither do you, but that is the argument you set up).

1. Someone has to do the killing. Even if it is just one person, that is a very destructive influence on someone's spirit. Then there are the effects on the souls of everyone who stands by and allows this to happen. As a Christian, I think the real danger of abortion is to the people who approve of it and how it will twist them.

2. According to Christianity, our purpose is not to "be saved" but to serve God. We have works to accomplish in our life that are determined by God to fulfill His purposes. So, it is an incomplete argument to only consider the final destination without asking whether the goals were met along the way.

34

I think Alexander Scott best sums up my view: There are always at least two parties involved in abortion, and there is much more God intends for the Christian life than just getting to heaven.

But beyond his two answers lies a third: God forbids murder. In God's economy, the end (getting that kid into heaven) never justifies the means (taking the innocent life). Not ever. And you will look in vain for any scriptural example or precedent for someone killing someone else for this reason.

And a fourth: God has designed his earthly methodology for salvation such that Christians produce Christians. If we killed all those who became Christians immediately (and killed the ones aborning), who would be left to bring the next generation to Christ? Or even the remainder of this generation? To risk being trite, evangelism by Christians is Plan A, and God intends there be no Plan B.

All these are true whether or not all dead babies go to heaven. If we further doubt the truth of that idea, then there are other reasons to consider - which were adequately alluded to above.

35

Slightly related question: will free will exist in heaven? That is, can people and/or angels still choose to reject God?

Even more Christians seem to play a lot of games with this 'choice' aspect. You're being asked to make a choice based on limited information. If you make the wrong choice there's no opportunity to correct it.

A better reading I've read views this as less of a choice and more of a state of character. Being in heaven is a bit like being enlightened. It's something you can choose to do or not but to someone who chooses against enlightenment heaven will feel like hell (it would be hell for all intents and purposes). This reading wouldn't really have a place called hell, everything is with God because God is the source of everything to begin with. So what choice does a beign that hates God have but to endure hell?

But this is not the reading most Christians present. The reading they present is that there is literally a place called heaven and a place called hell...they are NOT the same place. God tosses people into hell based on some 'choice' they had when they were alive sort of like how your credit card gives you a 'choice' when they send you those 'revisions' to your terms of agreement. Then again perhaps I read too many Jack Chic tracs.

36

Or perhaps you write too many of those tracs...

37

Ex-preacher,

If the chief end of man is "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever", than the aborted fetus is short-changed of the oppportunity to glorify God on earth.

But I don't think you are really interested in theology. In fact, I marvel at how you continually linger on this forum.

If I had come to the conclusion that Christianity was nonsense, I would be devoting my precious, mortal, finite, non-eternal hours to much more worthwhile pursuits than jousting with Christians on some website forum. Yet still you persist.

You just can't let it go, can you? Maybe you're not such an "ex" as you think.

I will pray for you, and you can "think" for me, if you want.

38

One would think if Joe had really concluded atheism was such nonsense he wouldn't have devoted...ohhh...sayyy 5,000 blog posts now and counting...ditto for his creationism (sorry, IDism).

39

A number of interesting responses have been posted. I appreciate those who have treated this question as seriously as it deserves. Still, I can't see that anyone has answered the question I asked: "From the fetus' view, is being born and going to hell better than being aborted and going to heaven?"

To briefly answer some of your responses:
"Better" does not require an objective standard. It is a relative term.

I'm not asking whether a person who kills a fetus is doing a good thing.

Several of you mention that glorifying god is life's purpose. Besides the problem of a god whose only reason for making sensient beings is so they can tell him how great he is, this still does not address my question.

On many levels, the responses from Christians display the inherent contradictions, fundamental irrationality and callousness of Christianity. I'm reminded of a couple quotes.

Christianity boils down to two points: One, God loves you very much. Two, if you don't love him back he will throw you into hell.

Humanism teaches that all humans deserve to be treated with dignity. Christianity teaches that all humans deserve to burn in hell forever.

40

ex says:Christianity boils down to two points: One, God loves you very much. Two, if you don't love him back he will throw you into hell.

Humanism teaches that all humans deserve to be treated with dignity. Christianity teaches that all humans deserve to burn in hell forever.

This is a fair assessment of one strain - one strong, oftimes dominant strain - of Christianity. But there are minority views - St. Iraneus stands at their head - who reject this.

41

This is a sad post.

42

This is a sad post.

43

Four Reasons You Might Be Killed:
An Open Letter to Iraqis:

1. We got to fight you over there, so we won't have to fight you over here...
2. We can't cut n run.
3. If we leave, Bin Laden wins.
4. We need your Oil.

44

Ex-preacher--your question is ambiguous. As you last put it, you asked: "From the fetus' view, is being born and going to hell better than being aborted and going to heaven?" Now, the answer to that question obviously depends upon whether or not that person would have freely responded to the gospel if he had been allowed to develop to maturity. If that person would have freely believed and repented, then no, it was not better to kill them in utero. If that person would not have freely believed and repented, then yes, it was better, from their point of view to be killed and go to heaven. That, as far as I can see, is the answer to the question as you last stated it. Eternal consequences matter more than temporal consequences. Cf. Hebrews 11.

Of course, your question completely sidesteps the point of Joe's post, which was to shame those who continue to approve of and promote abortion. Why don't you say something about that? Finally, why are you unwilling to put your real name on your posts? What do you have to hide?

45

You all take Ex-preacher much more serious than I do.

But i'm glad to see some of the answers, even though I think they all are a bit off. I'm surprised by that, actually.

Ex-preachers question has little to do with the unborn child. Shoot, we might as well regress all the way to the beginning. Why did God create people in the first place?

He wants to be in a loving relationship with us. God created us and gave us the opportunity/choice to rebel against him. So clearly He wants us to choose life over death.

If the goal is merely heaven, then we as Christians would be honor bound to kill anyone we know who we thought was going to heaven. This wouldn't end at unborn children, it would be our own children too, other people's children, the end of all people as we know it. Absurd.

I figured everyone knew that Ex-preachers question was absurd and am surprised people have given it serious consideration.

As a point in my favor, no matter what anyone writes here, he will not be satisfied with the answer. Why indulge him then?

Just as JohnW will turn every single post of Joe's into a diatribe against Iraq.

46

It's hard to take your discussions seriously when you guys still support the continued occupation of Iraq and the slaughter of innocent human beings. It's kind of like those christians in German who would just sing louder when the train loads full of jews would roll past their church on their way to the concentration camps.

What's a matter, brown people's or islamic people's lives don't count?

47

ex-preacher wrote, in comment #5:

I would encourage you to instead spend your time trying to make thisworld a better place... give that money to Heifer
International...

To what moral framework do you refer, and to what moral authority do you appeal when you speak of making this world a "better" place? Who gets to
decide what's "better"? You? The UN?

Franklin Mason wrote, in comment #32:

...the baby, if it had lived, would not have been free not to commit great evil. But if this is so, it cannot be held responsible for what it
will do (or would do had it lived). Not free means not responsible; and if not responsible, then punishment is unjust.

If God lives outside of time (as I believe He must if He is omniscient--and He is) then He can surely observe the results of our "future"
choices even as we retain the free will to make them.

ex-preacher wrote, in comment #39 (and #48):
Christianity boils down to two points: One, God loves you very much. Two, if you don't love him back he will throw you into hell.

I love my dog. When he got sprayed lightly by a skunk a few years back, I washed him and took him right back into the house that night. When he
received a direct hit from a skunk, I washed him as best I could, then put him outside overnight, then I received him back. If he had somehow perversely/magically chosen to become a skunk, it would have broken
my heart, but I would have had no choice but to bar him from my house forever.

48

Maru's is absolutely the most dreadful analogy I have ever encountered.

49

Rob - Substitute porcupine. Better? ;-)

50

As a mother of four previous fetuses-one of which I was strongly cautioned to abort, I can say that my children were all lucky someone was praying for them...me and their father. Otherwise, they would have the strong chance of being dead. I have tough pregnancies, and pregnancies that left me with permanent scars well outside my "bikini" line...like on my ankles from swelling so badly.

I'm guessing this is reason enough to abort, let alone the kidney damage I suffered. However, that would be awfully hard to tell my 10 year old son who is a wonderfully gifted musician, and leads worship on Sundays. Who knew that a baby who jacked with his mom's appearance and health so badly, could be such a servant of Christ? One more of us "freaky evangelicals" out there!

51

From tip #3:

Still, you'll be better off playing it safe and getting that X chromosome.

That should read Y chromosome.

52

This was very thoughtfully written and addresses the frivolity of human rationale. I was so gratified yesterday to see a mother entering my place of work with her beautiful, blonde, Downs Syndrome daughter. This little girl was about 4 or 5 years old and just beaming with joy. It's been so long since I have seen a youngster with Downs. What once was not uncommon has become rare and I think we have sacrificed our compassion and merciful tolerance for the weaker in our society. We are losing our nobility. It plays out in how trivial we have become in our selfishness that we take it as an affront when someone is not the poster child for beauty and or brains.
As to one of the previous writers and his comparison to Germany of the 1930's and 40's. Has he never heard of Dietrich Bonnhoefer or the ten Boom family? They were not alone in their defense of the Jews or the helpless victims of Holocaust. They're just some of the more well known. Can he name even a single eyewitness account of people, Christians, he claimed, singing past the concentration camps? Did he not know that Hitler secularized the German society? Committed Christians, people whose lives are steeped in the word of God, and committed to living that out regardless of consequence, with or without the assistance of the organized church, with mercy and love for one another sacrificed much to save their fellow man during those bleak years. Does he know that African-American babies are among the most frequently aborted? Does he realize that the percentage of African-Americans as a segment of the entire American population is suffering because of the legal genocide practiced against these recent generations of black babies? What if there was a Booker T. Washington, a Marian Anderson, a Frederick Douglas or a Martin Luther King Jr. among those "fetal tissues" that were severed from the mother's womb. The legacy of a generation is being destroyed.