Christians: what happens to the souls of unborn children that are aborted?

[bilby]

Again, looking only at the consequences for the 3 souls involved, it seems like 2 of them are doing something for the 3rd one that not only provides an immeasurable positive benefit, but also has no negative side effects. It removes the possibility of the most negative outcome conceivable for a soul (hell). And any potential deprivation can be effortlessly remedied in paradise an infinite number of times. Tell me specifically which of the 3 souls is worse off, and why?

Two of the three are worst off - the mother & the doctor. Both are guilty of wilfully taking life or abetting the taking of a life.

In the same way that people are guilty of giving to a charity; or guilty of splinting a broken leg.

If taking a life is certain to send a soul to heaven, then talk of being 'guilty' of doing this seems totally arse-backwards.

Doing something to someone that improves their position isn't an occasion for guilt.

(And if it was, they only need to do it three times to make it a net benefit overall, even if the mother and the doctor are both damned for assisting other souls to avoid the risk of damnation - a selfless and even heroic act if ever there was one, sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others).

 

[PyramidHead]

Again, looking only at the consequences for the 3 souls involved, it seems like 2 of them are doing something for the 3rd one that not only provides an immeasurable positive benefit, but also has no negative side effects. It removes the possibility of the most negative outcome conceivable for a soul (hell). And any potential deprivation can be effortlessly remedied in paradise an infinite number of times. Tell me specifically which of the 3 souls is worse off, and why?

Two of the three are worst off - the mother & the doctor. Both are guilty of wilfully taking life or abetting the taking of a life.

First: what bilby said.

But I'll even grant your point for the sake of argument. Suppose you're right and the doctor and the mother both give up their place in heaven so that their unborn child may go in their stead. Isn't that an incredibly noble, self-sacrificing act? To suffer for an eternity so that your offspring never has to worry, struggle, or fall prey to evil, never has to navigate the peril of escaping hellfire, seems like the ultimate act of selflessness. Is there any greater thing to give up than one's soul, and any greater gift to bestow in so doing than eternal life? Not even Christ gave his immortal soul for our sins, and he didn't even guarantee our unconditional acceptance into heaven. My point is, even if you're right that two people are worse off in order to make one person better off, that's basically the definition of compassion. If compassion is a Christian virtue, people who get and perform abortions should be sainted, not condemned.

EDIT: just noticed that bilby said pretty much the same thing. So, again: what bilby said.

 

[blastula]

John 15:13

 

[credoconsolans]

or
3) the earlier christians were not earlier catholics so any such comparison is misleading

It is known that early Christians c. 2nd-3rd C. when out into the streets and fields, woods to gather up the abandoned children and infants. So it sis not such a stretch for them to look after mothers before the birth to look after mother & child.

It is also well known that early Christians after the 4th century ce were almost exclusively Catholics. And the idea of purgatory or limbo for non-baptized souls was a belief for thousands of years. St. Augustine even wrote the unbaptized babies, stained with Original Sin would go to hell, but they wouldn't suffer torments. It was only much later that the Church tried to soften this idea with purgatory or limbo. So we can say that for most of Christianity's existence, most people believed that babies were not saved if they died unbaptized.

 

[Lion IRC]

The idea of purgatory or limbo for non-baptized souls has never been dogma in the Catholic Church. The reason it hasn't is because it's not sufficiently supported by scripture/revelation.
Hence lots of catholics including popes have done lots of talking about it and nothing more.
No magisterial dogmatic statement. No standing catechism.

That's what it would take to end the (catholic) theological speculation on the topic.

 

[Tigers!]

Two of the three are worst off - the mother & the doctor. Both are guilty of wilfully taking life or abetting the taking of a life.

In the same way that people are guilty of giving to a charity; or guilty of splinting a broken leg.

Do you really believe that giving to charity is any way comparable to an abortion?

If taking a life is certain to send a soul to heaven, then talk of being 'guilty' of doing this seems totally arse-backwards.

Doing something to someone that improves their position isn't an occasion for guilt.

(And if it was, they only need to do it three times to make it a net benefit overall, even if the mother and the doctor are both damned for assisting other souls to avoid the risk of damnation - a selfless and even heroic act if ever there was one, sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others).

If the taking of an innocent life is now a cause for backslapping or a knighthood then there is very little more I can say.

 

[Tigers!]

Two of the three are worst off - the mother & the doctor. Both are guilty of wilfully taking life or abetting the taking of a life.

First: what bilby said.

But I'll even grant your point for the sake of argument. Suppose you're right and the doctor and the mother both give up their place in heaven so that their unborn child may go in their stead.

There will always be room in heaven for another person. They do not need to give up their place.

Isn't that an incredibly noble, self-sacrificing act? To suffer for an eternity so that your offspring never has to worry, struggle, or fall prey to evil, never has to navigate the peril of escaping hellfire, seems like the ultimate act of selflessness. Is there any greater thing to give up than one's soul, and any greater gift to bestow in so doing than eternal life?

Taking the life of a defenceless, innocent person is not a noble or selfless act. If you attacked a young child in the pram and smothered it saying that it would be better off as it is going to heaven then you would rightly be considered a base individual. Let's be brutally honest - the majority of abortions are done because the mother (since we are constantly told that the father has no say) has decided that she wants an abortion. She has an abortion not for any noble or selfless reason but because the child will be an inconvenience, a burden etc. to her and her life.
There are those very tiny circumstances where for medical reasons an abortion is necessary.

 

[angelo]

or
3) the earlier christians were not earlier catholics so any such comparison is misleading

It is known that early Christians c. 2nd-3rd C. when out into the streets and fields, woods to gather up the abandoned children and infants. So it sis not such a stretch for them to look after mothers before the birth to look after mother & child.

It is also well known that early Christians after the 4th century ce were almost exclusively Catholics. And the idea of purgatory or limbo for non-baptized souls was a belief for thousands of years. St. Augustine even wrote the unbaptized babies, stained with Original Sin would go to hell, but they wouldn't suffer torments. It was only much later that the Church tried to soften this idea with purgatory or limbo. So we can say that for most of Christianity's existence, most people believed that babies were not saved if they died unbaptized.

All this B/S was created by the church fathers to keep and frighten the sheeple from straying from the Catholic faith thereby keeping their coffers overflowing. There has never been a more profitable or better executed business plan ever!

 

[PyramidHead]

First: what bilby said.

But I'll even grant your point for the sake of argument. Suppose you're right and the doctor and the mother both give up their place in heaven so that their unborn child may go in their stead.

There will always be room in heaven for another person. They do not need to give up their place.

They do if abortion is a sin that sends people to hell.

Isn't that an incredibly noble, self-sacrificing act? To suffer for an eternity so that your offspring never has to worry, struggle, or fall prey to evil, never has to navigate the peril of escaping hellfire, seems like the ultimate act of selflessness. Is there any greater thing to give up than one's soul, and any greater gift to bestow in so doing than eternal life?

Taking the life of a defenceless, innocent person is not a noble or selfless act. If you attacked a young child in the pram and smothered it saying that it would be better off as it is going to heaven then you would rightly be considered a base individual.

I agree; but that's because I am not a Christian and do not believe that heaven exists. If you do, then I can't see how you can call the person in question anything other than a Good Samaritan. The problem is yours, not mine.

Let's be brutally honest - the majority of abortions are done because the mother (since we are constantly told that the father has no say) has decided that she wants an abortion. She has an abortion not for any noble or selfless reason but because the child will be an inconvenience, a burden etc. to her and her life.
There are those very tiny circumstances where for medical reasons an abortion is necessary.

Take it to another thread. All this one is about is the consequences to the aborted, which you have repeatedly conceded are nothing but positive. My reasoning has been outlined many times: doing something for another soul that has only positive consequences cannot be an immoral act. You can throw out as many examples as you like of other acts, but you have yet to address this central point.

 

[PyramidHead]

In the same way that people are guilty of giving to a charity; or guilty of splinting a broken leg.

Do you really believe that giving to charity is any way comparable to an abortion?

If taking a life is certain to send a soul to heaven, then talk of being 'guilty' of doing this seems totally arse-backwards.

Doing something to someone that improves their position isn't an occasion for guilt.

(And if it was, they only need to do it three times to make it a net benefit overall, even if the mother and the doctor are both damned for assisting other souls to avoid the risk of damnation - a selfless and even heroic act if ever there was one, sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others).

If the taking of an innocent life is now a cause for backslapping or a knighthood then there is very little more I can say.

No, WE don't believe these things, we're saying YOU do, if you honestly think that heaven is where the unborn go when they are aborted. You don't get to throw up your arms in incredulity at the result of following your own premises to their logical conclusion.

 

[bilby]

In the same way that people are guilty of giving to a charity; or guilty of splinting a broken leg.

Do you really believe that giving to charity is any way comparable to an abortion?

If taking a life is certain to send a soul to heaven, then talk of being 'guilty' of doing this seems totally arse-backwards.

Doing something to someone that improves their position isn't an occasion for guilt.

(And if it was, they only need to do it three times to make it a net benefit overall, even if the mother and the doctor are both damned for assisting other souls to avoid the risk of damnation - a selfless and even heroic act if ever there was one, sacrificing themselves for the benefit of others).

If the taking of an innocent life is now a cause for backslapping or a knighthood then there is very little more I can say.

It certainly is, in the context of this thought experiment where we accept the argument that taking an innocent life grants the innocent an eternity in paradise, while failing to do so exposes that life to the risk of eternal damnation.

Of course, if you (like I) agree that such a context has no resemblance to reality, then there is no need for incredulity - it's just a discussion about a hypothetical.

If you actually believe that taking the life of an innocent does lead to eternal paradise for the innocent, however, then this conclusion you seem to find ridiculous is, in fact, the only logical possibility. Your distaste for it changes that fact not one bit.

 

[Malintent]

That simply does not happen in modern cultures. No one wants to (and no one does) abort nearly fully developed fetuses.

Kermit Gosnell would disagree with you

.. he was convicted of murdering newly born children. Infanticide. Not related to abortion in any way (unless some state law prevented the woman from getting an early term abortion)... so then the fault of this is anti-choice influence. Regardless, this was not legal, and no one wants it to be. This is a nonsequitor, and exactly the caliber of argument against women's rights that exists. Thank you fo rmaking my point. This is exactly the kind of bullshit I was talking about.