This blog is having an
existential crisis

While I tinker with a new design, I’m also pondering how, what, and why I write here. I don’t know how long that will take, but you’re welcome to email me and see how things are progressing.

Stress-testing the
mind of Christ

Where a recovering ex-atheist rams the Bible into other worldviews to see what breaks (note: Scripture cannot be broken)


presentations
What’s the big deal with killing babies anyway?

I mean, really? God does it all the time!

As one pro-abortionist put it to me:

What’s the big deal with killing babies anyway? God killed millions of them in the bible and you still worship him. Make up your minds.

Sadly, this is not an isolated case. In my many discussions with pro-abortionists, I’ve seen plenty who argue along similar lines. A favorite argument is that since x% (the number changes every time) of pregnancies “spontaneously abort”, which is the will of God, it must be permissible to abort every pregnancy.

Perhaps you can spot the very obvious extension of this logic, which pro-abortionists strangely overlook. It is this: since God does not just kill babies, but is responsible for the death of every single human being ever (Gen 3:19; Job 14:5 etc), we should therefore expect Christians to endorse the killing of not just babies, but anyone whosoever. What’s the big deal with murder anyway?

Yet oddly, Christians do not take this view. They actually have this whole thing about murder being bad.

Are we inconsistent in this regard? It’s very difficult to see how. What precisely is the pro-abortionist argument meant to look like? It would presumably have to be something like this:

  1. Whatever God does is permissible for people to do
  2. God brings about the death of all people
  3. Therefore, it is permissible for people to bring about the death of all people

The obvious trouble occurs at premise (1). How would a pro-abortionist go about justifying this claim? Indeed, pro-abortionists seem to have a problem here, because another very common assertion I see them make regularly is that we (especially Christians) should not judge other people. But they can’t eat their cake and still have it too—after all, God judges all people, so if (1) is true, it is permissible for us to judge all people.

It seems obvious that (1) must be false. Since God is the perfect creator, and we are immoral creatures, it is nonsensical to think that we have identical rights and privileges to him. Moreover, it is plainly nonsensical—it is the sort of extraordinary claim that immediately demands a heavy burden of proof.

But the pro-abortionists I see making these kinds of arguments are not quick to shoulder that burden. I think it is because they do not reason in the first place; they emote. This is not a problem confined to them—it is rampant in the church also—but it is certainly exemplified in them. Unfortunately, as long as most people decide what is true by how they feel, rather than by careful reflection on the facts, I think abortion will remain legal. It is simply too easy for vicious liberal feminists to browbeat such people into agreeing with them.

Perhaps Christians should start shaming people in the same way, instead of presenting arguments. Right now the two sides are fighting according to entirely different sets of rules—and the “declare X to be an issue about Y’s rights regardless of the facts, then call anyone opposed to X a bigoted idiot” side seems to be winning. Abortion is about “women’s rights”, so if you’re opposed to abortion you are an anti-woman misogynist. Same-sex marriage is about “equal rights” for homosexuals, so if you’re opposed to it you’re no better than a racist who would deny blacks the vote. Etc.

Pity it’s such a patently dishonest strategy. One might have to sacrifice one’s principles about bearing false witness in order to win the war…

No comments (but there will be if you leave one)

  I don’t post ill-considered articles and I don’t sponsor ill-considered comments. Take a moment to review what you’ve written…