Morality of abortion

[Cope]

something just crossed my mind: If a baby (with a soul presumably) is aborted before it's born, would it be condemned to hell? would its soul vanish?

if not, wouldn't it be nice, practically speaking, whether it's moral or not?

A deceased child would not be condemned to Hell. The Gospels are emphatic in recording Christ's likening of children to God's kingdom.

Matthew 19: 13, 14.

[13] "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them." [14] "But Jesus said, 'Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven'".

Mark 10: 13-15.

[13] "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them". [14] "But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased and said unto them, 'Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for such is the kingdom of God. [15] Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein'".

Parallel account, Luke 18: 15-17.

In the account of the death of King David's infant son, who was born of Bath-sheba, it is also clearly inferred that the child departed to heaven.

2 Samuel 12: 22, 23.

[22] "And he said, 'While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?'" [23] "'But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me'".

The speaker in the above passage is King David. Note first the king's decision to stop fasting and weeping upon learning of the death of his son who perished from illness. Had his child passed into Hell, there would clearly have been a greater need to lament and repent than there had been during his sickness. Secondly, and more importantly, the king claims "I shall go to him" which implies he shall one day join him in heaven. For though a person may follow another into the abyss, they cannot go to them.

Eh, but evil only concerns the parents, not the babies?

Imagine a person aborted 10 babies, she might go to hell but then all the babies would be in heaven, wouldn't that be nice? Would you not call that self-sacrifice? would she not be promoted due to the supposedly self-sacrificing act?

An act motivated by self-interest is not self-sacrifice. God can neither be fooled nor bound by the technicalities of human legalism. A person cannot supplant goodness of spirit and true righteousness with legalism and except to rise to His kingdom. This is a central theme of Christ's message, and one which brings Him into direct conflict with many pharisees and elders.

Matthew 7: 21-23.

[21] "'Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven'". [22] "'Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?'" [23] "'And I will profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.'"

Mark 3: 1-6.

"And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand". [2] "And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him". [3] "And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, 'Stand forth'". [4] "And he saith unto them 'Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?' But they held their peace". [5] "And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man 'Stretch forth thine hand'. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other." [6] "And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him."

[Genghis Skahn]

Do you know what's meant by paganism?

I think that you're the one who should be asking yourself that question, since you've been broadly lumping them all together as if they were a monolithic group(which is a distinctly Judeo-Christian thing to do), and moreover blaming the legalization of abortion on them, for some inane reason. Your arguments just plain suck, I'm sorry; modern abortion laws and the pro-choice movement at large have basically NOTHING to do with paganism. It's all just a projection on your part, and you've failed to provide evidence to the contrary, especially since you ignored addressing that part of my argument.

Only if you think tolerating an opposing view means accepting it.

No, your posts upthread about pagans suggest that you're intolerant of them. It's pretty goddamn clear to anyone in this thread other than yourself, since your negative posts about them reek of moral disgust with their beliefs(even though I'm pretty sure that you're clueless as to what they actually believe in themselves).

[Cope]

I think that you're the one who should be asking yourself that question, since you've been broadly lumping them all together as if they were a monolithic group(which is a distinctly Judeo-Christian thing to do), and moreover blaming the legalization of abortion on them, for some inane reason. Your arguments just plain suck, I'm sorry; modern abortion laws and the pro-choice movement at large have basically NOTHING to do with paganism. It's all just a projection on your part, and you've failed to provide evidence to the contrary, especially since you ignored addressing that part of my argument.

No, your posts upthread about pagans suggest that you're intolerant of them. It's pretty goddamn clear to anyone in this thread other than yourself, since your negative posts about them reek of moral disgust with their beliefs(even though I'm pretty sure that you're clueless as to what they actually believe in themselves).

So far as I can tell, Podromos is characterizing all the people outside of Christendom (and possibly Judaism) as being pagan. The rationale being used is that if you do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Father of Jesus the Christ then you are necessarily pagan. This is on account of your supposed worship of "idols". The concept of idols, as it being used by Podromos, refers to anything which is not God. This includes not only the gods and/or spirits he deems to be false, but also material possessions. By Podromos' thinking, it would therefore not only be possible, but also very likely (if not certain) for atheists to in fact be pagan. When I've heard this argument before, it isn't to say that the traditions and practices of pagan (ie. non-Christian) people are identical, but it is to say that they are all equally condemned.

What the specific beliefs of pagans are is irrelevant to Podromos: all he has to know is that they do not worship God, the Father of the Christ. From this he believes he can extrapolate that all those who support abortion must necessarily be pagan, since no true follower of Christ would.

[Genghis Skahn]

So far as I can tell, Podromos is characterizing all the people outside of Christendom (and possibly Judaism) as being pagan. The rationale being used is that if you do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Father of Jesus the Christ then you are necessarily pagan. This is on account of your supposed worship of "idols". The concept of idols, as it being used by Podromos, refers to anything which is not God. This includes not only the gods and/or spirits he deems to be false, but also material possessions. By Podromos' thinking, it would therefore not only be possible, but also very likely (if not certain) for atheists to in fact be pagan.

If so, then that's a gross misuse of the term Pagan, IMO, since in modern parlance it chiefly refers to New-Age Pagans, Norse Pagans and other traditionalists who follow an indigenous religion rather than a Judeo-Christian one or Buddhism(IMO, only the most fanatic and intolerant Christians of today's world would consider Buddhists to be "Pagans"--but I could be wrong). In the modern world, the term Pagan just doesn't refer to any sort of non-christian anymore. At best, that would be an archaic usage of the term Pagan; at worst, an inaccurate usage of the term. It's especially wrong to consider an atheist or agnostic a Pagan(assuming he does), since actual Pagans are distinguished by a belief in spiritual forces and/or higher powers, rituals, etc.. Really, I can't imagine who in their right mind would blindly label atheists and agnostics as Pagans--it's just intellectually lazy.

When I've heard this argument before, it isn't to say that the traditions and practices of pagan (ie. non-Christian) people are identical, but it is to say that they are all equally condemned.

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be little difference between those two beliefs, since they're both equally intolerant, and since he's still broadly classifying them as reprehensible, regardless of what they actually believe. If he is using the term pagan as broadly(and IMO inaccurately) as you suppose, then it's still an extremely misguided belief since certain forms of what he classifies as "paganism" might actually oppose abortion(as Shinto technically does, with at least one less popular sect of it actively opposing abortion), and might not "only care about themselves", as he believes. For example, if he considers a Muslim to be a pagan(which would be ridiculous in a modern theological argument, IMO), then it's absolutely silly to believe that they would be responsible for abortion legislation(most Muslims do not condone abortion) and also ridiculous to suggest that they "only care about themselves"(unrestrained individualism is, to my knowledge, not condoned in Islam).

What the specific beliefs of pagans are is irrelevant to Podromos: all he has to know is that they do not worship God, the Father of the Christ. From this he believes he can extrapolate that all those who support abortion must necessarily be pagan, since no true follower of Christ would.

And that's why I suggested that he was being intolerant of Paganism. He doesn't care about their actual beliefs(even if they oppose abortion, which is the whole thread topic, not anything to do with Paganism at large!), it only matters that they aren't Christian, so therefore their beliefs are all equally bad, which isn't much different from treating Pagans as a monolithic group, IMO.

[Prodromos]

I think that you're the one who should be asking yourself that question, since you've been broadly lumping them all together as if they were a monolithic group(which is a distinctly Judeo-Christian thing to do), and moreover blaming the legalization of abortion on them, for some inane reason. Your arguments just plain suck, I'm sorry; modern abortion laws and the pro-choice movement at large have basically NOTHING to do with paganism. It's all just a projection on your part, and you've failed to provide evidence to the contrary, especially since you ignored addressing that part of my argument.

No, your posts upthread about pagans suggest that you're intolerant of them. It's pretty goddamn clear to anyone in this thread other than yourself, since your negative posts about them reek of moral disgust with their beliefs(even though I'm pretty sure that you're clueless as to what they actually believe in themselves).

Well I have no clue what point you're trying to make, so I can't address it; you're just throwing around random descriptions of my arguments, when I haven't actually made any arguments. Yes, I think paganism is false and a pathway to vice, such as supporting abortion. Not sure how that's intolerant, unless you think that tolerating someone means agreeing with them, which is pretty incoherent, since people have all kinds of contradictory beliefs, so you'd need to simultaneously hold several mutually exclusive beliefs to be tolerant of everyone. No, only falsehood demands tolerance; truth demands scrutiny. Religious tolerance applies only to people, not ideas. You can tolerate pagans while denouncing their inhuman ideas.

"Truth disdains the aid of the law for its defence–it will stand upon its own merit. … It is error, and error alone, that needs human support; and whenever men fly to the law or sword to protect their system of religion, and force it upon others, it is evident that they have something in their system that will not bear the light, and stand upon the basis of truth." Rev. John Leland

That's what religious tolerance has always meant; not believing that erroneous beliefs are true or that error and truth are equally right.

A pagan is someone who doesn't worship the God of the Bible. The correlation between paganism and support for abortion is unmistakable, and unsurprising. No one can escape the logical entailments of their worldview by pretending they don't exist. When you discover the Imago Dei, it completely transforms the way you view the world. Likewise, when you don't know that every human being is infinitely valuable, that also informs your worldview.

#211

#213

[Cope]

If so, then that's a gross misuse of the term Pagan, IMO, since in modern parlance it chiefly refers to New-Age Pagans, Norse Pagans and other traditionalists who follow an indigenous religion rather than a Judeo-Christian one or Buddhism(IMO, only the most fanatic and intolerant Christians of today's world would consider Buddhists to be "Pagans"--but I could be wrong). In the modern world, the term Pagan just doesn't refer to any sort of non-christian anymore. At best, that would be an archaic usage of the term Pagan; at worst, an inaccurate usage of the term. It's especially wrong to consider an atheist or agnostic a Pagan(assuming he does), since actual Pagans are distinguished by a belief in spiritual forces and/or higher powers, rituals, etc.. Really, I can't imagine who in their right mind would blindly label atheists and agnostics as Pagans--it's just intellectually lazy.

It depends on the context in and perspective from which the term is being used. You are correct that in the modern vernacular paganism typically refers to polytheism either new age or ancient. In a biblical sense it often appears to mean the worship of false idols - which as I've already explained can also include atheists and agnostics. The confusion probably stems from the fact that many of the peoples of the Mosaic era (that is, the era in which the Old Testament was written) were polytheists.

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be little difference between those two beliefs, since they're both equally intolerant, and since he's still broadly classifying them as reprehensible, regardless of what they actually believe. If he is using the term pagan as broadly(and IMO inaccurately) as you suppose, then it's still an extremely misguided belief since certain forms of what he classifies as "paganism" might actually oppose abortion(as Shinto technically does, with at least one less popular sect of it actively opposing abortion), and might not "only care about themselves", as he believes. For example, if he considers a Muslim to be a pagan(which would be ridiculous in a modern theological argument, IMO), then it's absolutely silly to believe that they would be responsible for abortion legislation(most Muslims do not condone abortion) and also ridiculous to suggest that they "only care about themselves"(unrestrained individualism is, to my knowledge, not condoned in Islam).

And that's why I suggested that he was being intolerant of Paganism. He doesn't care about their actual beliefs(even if they oppose abortion, which is the whole thread topic, not anything to do with Paganism at large!), it only matters that they aren't Christian, so therefore their beliefs are all equally bad, which isn't much different from treating Pagans as a monolithic group, IMO.

I don't believe Podromos is saying that pagans necessarily support abortion: he's arguing that those who support legal abortions are necessarily pagan. As to the issue of alleged intolerance, that all hinges on your classification of the term. There isn't much argument from me that he is separating all men into those of Christ and those not of Christ, though I'm not sure that is immediately intolerant in and of itself.

[Genghis Skahn]

Well I have no clue what point you're trying to make, so I can't address it; you're just throwing around random descriptions of my arguments, when I haven't actually made any arguments. Yes, I think paganism is false and a pathway to vice, such as supporting abortion

My point was obvious and addressed in the first response I made to you, that this statement:

This is your mind on paganism: an individual human being isn't a completely unique and infinitely valuable creature made in God's image, but simply one more cog in the machine, no different from any other - worthless and replaceable. Leftists are collectors. Theirs is an inhuman ideology.

Is nonsense and that POVGs post had nothing to do with Paganism at large; that it was a projection on your part, nothing more, nothing less. Your definition of Pagan is also ridiculous and too broad.

The correlation between paganism and support for abortion is unmistakable, and unsurprising

Citation needed, given your overly broad definition of paganism. Already including Muslims under your pagan-umbrella makes your statement totally bunk.

[Prodromos]

My point was obvious and addressed in the first response I made to you, that this statement:

Can't be that obvious. You made no point except to say that my arguments are wrong and intolerant, which I addressed in my last post.

Is nonsense and that POVGs post had nothing to do with Paganism at large; that it was a projection on your part, nothing more, nothing less. Your definition of Pagan is also ridiculous and too broad.

Not really, unless you believe you alone hold the one true definition of paganism. Here's one that contradicts yours:

Early Christians referred to the diverse array of cults around them as a single group for reasons of convenience and rhetoric.[36] While paganism generally implies polytheism, the primary distinction between classical pagans and Christians was not one of monotheism versus polytheism. Not all pagans were strictly polytheist. Throughout history, many of them believed in a supreme deity. (However, most such pagans believed in a class of subordinate gods/daimons—see henotheism—or divine emanations.)[11] To Christians, the most important distinction was whether or not someone worshipped the one true God. Those who did not (polytheist, monotheist, or atheist) were outsiders to the Church and thus pagan.[37]

Citation needed, given your overly broad definition of paganism. Already including Muslims under your pagan-umbrella makes your statement totally bunk.

You think mainstream Islam accepts the Imago Dei and that all human life is infinitely valuable?

You're pagan. Do you oppose abortion?

[95thrifleman]

Muslim nations ban abortion unless essential to save the mother's life. Many muslim scholars prohibit abortion even in the case of rape and incest, there is little difference between islam and the catholic faith in regards to abortion.

Kill not your offspring for fear of poverty; it is We who provide for them and for you. Surely, killing them is a great sin.
Qur'an 17:32

Whosoever has spared the life of a soul, it is as though he has spared the life of all people. Whosoever has killed a soul, it is as though he has murdered all of mankind.
Qur'an 5:32

[Prodromos]

What's that got to do with the Imago Dei?

[95thrifleman]

What's that got to do with the Imago Dei?

You class muslims as pagans and claim all pagans support abortion. The fact is the muslims are little different from christians in essential doctrine, hell shariah countries are almost identical to the christian theocracies of the past.

In terms of attitudes towards abortion, homosexuality, marriage and many other areas the muslims and christians are on the exact same page.

[Prodromos]

You class muslims as pagans and claim all pagans support abortion. The fact is the muslims are little different from christians in essential doctrine, hell shariah countries are almost identical to the christian theocracies of the past.

In terms of attitudes towards abortion, homosexuality, marriage and many other areas the muslims and christians are on the exact same page.

Not really, Islam has no understanding of the Imago Dei in the sense used here. Their opposition to abortion wouldn't be because they believe in the infinite worth of every individual. If I recall correctly under Islamic law the father has a right to kill his children, or at least receive an extremely reduced penalty for it, basically a slap on the wrist.

A serial killer could be personally opposed to his wife's getting an abortion, however, to say that this is no different from the Christian prohibition on abortion is absurd. Islam's "attitudes" towards abortion, homosexuality, marriage etc. don't come from a position of love for their fellow man. It's completely different from the Christian view.

[95thrifleman]

Not really, Islam has no understanding of the Imago Dei in the sense used here. Their opposition to abortion wouldn't be because they believe in the infinite worth of every individual. If I recall correctly under Islamic law the father has a right to kill his children, or at least receive an extremely reduced penalty for it, basically a slap on the wrist.

A serial killer could be personally opposed to his wife's getting an abortion, however, to say that this is no different from the Christian prohibition on abortion is absurd. Islam's "attitudes" towards abortion, homosexuality, marriage etc. don't come from a position of love for their fellow man. It's completely different from the Christian view.

Christian history is very selective about it's position of love for their fellow man. You yourself advocate war against iran and the deaths of thousands.

[Prodromos]

Christian history is very selective about it's position of love for their fellow man.

I'm talking about Christian doctrine.

[95thrifleman]

I'm talking about Christian doctrine.

Christian doctrine? Love they neighbour till it's inconveniant then come up with a legitimate excuse to kill him.

[PointOfViewGun]

If I recall correctly under Islamic law the father has a right to kill his children, or at least receive an extremely reduced penalty for it, basically a slap on the wrist.

Sigh... In what universe is this even remotely true?

[Prodromos]

Sorry, do you have a point here, matey? Because this back-and-forth doesn't seem very productive.

[95thrifleman]

Sorry, do you have a point here, matey? Because this back-and-forth doesn't seem very productive.

You made a statement, i called you on it's , now you try and run.

[Prodromos]

So basically you don't have a point, you're just derailing the topic for no reason.

[sumskilz]

Whosoever has spared the life of a soul, it is as though he has spared the life of all people. Whosoever has killed a soul, it is as though he has murdered all of mankind.
Qur'an 5:32

You took that out of context, and so left out who it addresses and the qualifier regarding when it is permissible to kill.

The entire passage is:

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

It's a criticism of Jews, and since it says many have been transgressors in the land, it is therefore permissible to kill them and drive them out. Which is made even more clear by the very next line:

Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.

https://quran.com/5/32-42?translations=20

The land here in the historical context would be Israel. The sentiment you seem to appreciate in there is taken almost word for word from a court discussion in the Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 37a), but which has been re-purposed in the Quran.

EDIT: The land is typically interpreted in a more general sense later.