6 ms·

The Afterlife Dilemma: A Problem for the Christian Pro-Life Movement

13 points by nabla9 4y ago

quantified 4y ago
What's the overlap between religious anti-abortion motivations and the sentiment that the fetus must be able to lead a life outside the womb? I hear a lot more about the "lead a life" as though it's a definite good, but not so much about the afterlife implications. The bible (and God) don't say much about living life apart from the duties you have to praising God or treating each other one way or another (loving each other, stoning each other, etc.). The Judeo-Christian bible revels in stories of torment for the living, so being accessing life outside the womb is in no way intended to also access liberty or the pursuit of happiness. In fact, a delivered infant could be celebrated for a life of unremitting suffering (which seems sort of perverse, but I find the purpose of that God to be mysterious along with everyone else).
ninethirty 4y ago
Author is unfamiliar with actual Christianity (ie. dogmatic Catholicism). Unbaptized children go to a part of Hell where there is no fire (The Limbo of the Children); they are denied the beatific vision. Full explanation: Why Most Pro-Lifers Are Not Truly Pro-Life https://endtimes.video/pro-life-groups/ https://endtimes.video/pro-life-groups/
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  I have never seen anyone say that only Catholicism is actually Christianity.
  - skissane 4y ago
    In fact, according to Catholicism, "only Catholics are Christian" is actually a heresy (Feeneyism aka "the Boston heresy")
    - ninethirty 4y ago
      There wouldn't have been conflict with the Protestants if what you say were true, which of course its not. Pope Pius VIII: “Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark. Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved. He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.” (Traditi humilitati #4, May 24, 1829) Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation https://vaticancatholic.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf https://vaticancatholic.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
      - skissane 4y ago
        Feeneyism was condemned by the Holy Office in their letter of August 8, 1949. https://web.archive.org/web/20000311121352/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt https://web.archive.org/web/20000311121352/http://www.columb...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - dylan604 4y ago
    I've actually seen it as Catholicism is not Christianity.
- skissane 4y ago
  > Author is unfamiliar with actual Christianity (ie. dogmatic Catholicism). Unbaptized children go to a part of Hell where there is no fire (The Limbo of the Children); they are denied the beatific vision You are presenting the "Limbo of the Children" as "dogmatic". The International Theological Commission (a body of expert professional theologians whose members are appointed by the Pope) has a rather different view on that Limbo [0] than you do (my emphasis): "This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis". [1] [0] I say "that Limbo", there is also much talk of "the Limbo of the Fathers"; and more rarely and controversially the "Limbo of Virtuous Pagans" [1] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_...
  - ninethirty 4y ago
    You are again totally incorrect. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”72
    - skissane 4y ago
      As the Holy Office said in their 1949 letter: > However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. Catholic teaching is that you need to interpret the text you cite "in that sense in which the Church herself understands it", not according to your own private judgement.
  - 4y ago
thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
The author's arguments depend entirely on a religion's views of the purpose of life and the afterlife: "The overwhelming majority of pro-life advocates are religious, and many of those are Christians who hold the following beliefs: There exists a morally perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful god who created our universe. Restricting abortions ought to be a top social and political priority. Embryos and fetuses that die all go to hell for eternity, or they all go to heaven for eternity." Why do Judeo-Christian religions prohibit murder? ("Thou shalt not kill") Many religions say that the times when a person should be born and when a person should die are up to God's purposes and plan for that person. By this reckoning a murder causes a person to die BEFORE the time that God appointed for them to die. In a similar way, many religions view abortion as a form of murder--killing a person before they were born and outside of God's plan for that person. The afterlife fate of a murdered person regardless of how they were murdered would be up to God's judgement. To try to declare what God's judgement for a murdered person would be as justification for their murder would be both arrogant and evil.
- allturtles 4y ago
  > Many religions say that the times when a person should be born and when a person should die are up to God's purposes and plan for that person. By this reckoning a murder causes a person to die BEFORE the time that God appointed for them to die. I can't see how to reconcile this belief with an all-knowing and all-powerful God. If murders were disruptive to his plan, wouldn't he just prevent them from happening? Are all non-murder deaths part of his plan? If I am hit by a car while in the crosswalk by someone who looked down at their phone, is that part of God's plan for me, but if the driver maliciously ran me down, it isn't? What if it was an accident, but they were drunk? Is God somehow frustrated or annoyed when a murder happens? Does it surprise God?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    This is one of the oldest theosophical questions and much has been written about it. The quick and dirty answer is that God can permit things he wouldn’t do himself because he deems people having free will as more important basically. But this is a really crappy analogy. The term of art is “the problem of evil” - https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article2 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article2
rayiner 4y ago
- etrautmann 4y ago
  This who debate boils down to drawing hard lines on top of gradients. I find it uncomplicated to argue that a blastula is not a human (yet) and the potential for life is not a useful moral metric either (otherwise it'd be immoral not to maximize fertilization and child output). Everything in between a few cells and a baby is a gradient between next to nothing and complete humanness, and somehow we need to agree where lines should be drawn to binarize this gray area for moral and legal decision making. It's clearly an impossible task, so the fight will persist.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    I generally agree, but to nitpick: I’d say a blastula is a “human” insofar as the term identifies a distinct organism of the human species. But it may not be a “person.”
- allturtles 4y ago
  If the moral logic of heaven mean that we shouldn't condemn infanticide (after all it just gets souls to heaven faster, and heaven is way better than earth), isn't that a problem for Christian doctrine, not the author of this paper?
  - rayiner 4y ago
    No, because that paraphrasing is the author’s logic, not Christian doctrine.
    - boxed 4y ago
      It's not the doctrine. But it's the logical extrapolation.
      - rayiner 4y ago
civilized 4y ago
This is silly. You don't game God with cutesy game theory in Christianity. He says don't kill, you don't kill.
- bombcar 4y ago
  I mean depending on how you read some of the stories in the Bible you can try just that. He’ll let you, and then still win.
- timbit42 4y ago
  What if killing someone would save the lives of 2 or more people?
- boxed 4y ago
  1. He doesn't actually say "don't kill" 2. Abortion isn't mentioned in the bible.
karmakurtisaani 4y ago
Reasoning about the whims of an all-powerful being, whether through logic or thousand year old books is rather obnoxious.
parkerduckworth 4y ago
I see no dilemma. Violent death imparted on an unwilling victim isn’t justified simply because they can theoretically go to heaven.
- boxed 4y ago
  For a Christian it's not "theoretically". It's absolutely certain. The article argues a logical point from within the Christian framework. Obviously if you are outside that framework, nothing of it makes any sense.
hackeraccount 4y ago
You need to assume abortion is murder to be against it. If I went to an Animal Shelter every day, got a cat or a dog and then painlessly killed it when I got home no one would call me a murderer. A monster maybe but not a murderer. Everyone thinks that we owe dogs and cats a certain amount of respect. We acknowledge that sometimes we have to kill them but we're trying to create a world we do not have to do that. My problem is with people who are so eager to preserve their freedom of action if they one day want to kill their dog that they will not concede that doing that is something we all want to avoid. That the question we're discussing is not if it's right but how exactly we should go about making sure it doesn't ever have to happen. I understand there is a fear that people who kill their pets will be put in jail - and that lead to people getting hurt. Or that if we don't pay for people to have their pets killed then only rich will people will be able to kill their cats. It's possible to look at this from different angles and come to what might seem strange conclusions - I just don't think we should lose sight of the fundamentals.

13 points by nabla9 4y ago

What's the overlap between religious anti-abortion motivations and the sentiment that the fetus must be able to lead a life outside the womb? I hear a lot more about the "lead a life" as though it's a definite good, but not so much about the afterlife implications. The bible (and God) don't say much about living life apart from the duties you have to praising God or treating each other one way or another (loving each other, stoning each other, etc.). The Judeo-Christian bible revels in stories of torment for the living, so being accessing life outside the womb is in no way intended to also access liberty or the pursuit of happiness. In fact, a delivered infant could be celebrated for a life of unremitting suffering (which seems sort of perverse, but I find the purpose of that God to be mysterious along with everyone else).

ninethirty 4y ago

Author is unfamiliar with actual Christianity (ie. dogmatic Catholicism). Unbaptized children go to a part of Hell where there is no fire (The Limbo of the Children); they are denied the beatific vision. Full explanation: Why Most Pro-Lifers Are Not Truly Pro-Life https://endtimes.video/pro-life-groups/ https://endtimes.video/pro-life-groups/

JKCalhoun 4y ago
I have never seen anyone say that only Catholicism is actually Christianity.
- skissane 4y ago
  In fact, according to Catholicism, "only Catholics are Christian" is actually a heresy (Feeneyism aka "the Boston heresy")
  - ninethirty 4y ago
    There wouldn't have been conflict with the Protestants if what you say were true, which of course its not. Pope Pius VIII: “Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark. Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved. He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.” (Traditi humilitati #4, May 24, 1829) Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation https://vaticancatholic.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf https://vaticancatholic.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf
    - skissane 4y ago
      Feeneyism was condemned by the Holy Office in their letter of August 8, 1949. https://web.archive.org/web/20000311121352/http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/cdffeeney.txt https://web.archive.org/web/20000311121352/http://www.columb...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dylan604 4y ago
  I've actually seen it as Catholicism is not Christianity.
skissane 4y ago
> Author is unfamiliar with actual Christianity (ie. dogmatic Catholicism). Unbaptized children go to a part of Hell where there is no fire (The Limbo of the Children); they are denied the beatific vision You are presenting the "Limbo of the Children" as "dogmatic". The International Theological Commission (a body of expert professional theologians whose members are appointed by the Pope) has a rather different view on that Limbo [0] than you do (my emphasis): "This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis". [1] [0] I say "that Limbo", there is also much talk of "the Limbo of the Fathers"; and more rarely and controversially the "Limbo of Virtuous Pagans" [1] https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_...
- ninethirty 4y ago
  You are again totally incorrect. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”72
  - skissane 4y ago
    As the Holy Office said in their 1949 letter: > However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. Catholic teaching is that you need to interpret the text you cite "in that sense in which the Church herself understands it", not according to your own private judgement.
- 4y ago

thesuperbigfrog 4y ago

The author's arguments depend entirely on a religion's views of the purpose of life and the afterlife: "The overwhelming majority of pro-life advocates are religious, and many of those are Christians who hold the following beliefs: There exists a morally perfect, all-knowing, and all-powerful god who created our universe. Restricting abortions ought to be a top social and political priority. Embryos and fetuses that die all go to hell for eternity, or they all go to heaven for eternity." Why do Judeo-Christian religions prohibit murder? ("Thou shalt not kill") Many religions say that the times when a person should be born and when a person should die are up to God's purposes and plan for that person. By this reckoning a murder causes a person to die BEFORE the time that God appointed for them to die. In a similar way, many religions view abortion as a form of murder--killing a person before they were born and outside of God's plan for that person. The afterlife fate of a murdered person regardless of how they were murdered would be up to God's judgement. To try to declare what God's judgement for a murdered person would be as justification for their murder would be both arrogant and evil.

allturtles 4y ago
> Many religions say that the times when a person should be born and when a person should die are up to God's purposes and plan for that person. By this reckoning a murder causes a person to die BEFORE the time that God appointed for them to die. I can't see how to reconcile this belief with an all-knowing and all-powerful God. If murders were disruptive to his plan, wouldn't he just prevent them from happening? Are all non-murder deaths part of his plan? If I am hit by a car while in the crosswalk by someone who looked down at their phone, is that part of God's plan for me, but if the driver maliciously ran me down, it isn't? What if it was an accident, but they were drunk? Is God somehow frustrated or annoyed when a murder happens? Does it surprise God?
- bombcar 4y ago
  This is one of the oldest theosophical questions and much has been written about it. The quick and dirty answer is that God can permit things he wouldn’t do himself because he deems people having free will as more important basically. But this is a really crappy analogy. The term of art is “the problem of evil” - https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article2 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm#article2

rayiner 4y ago

etrautmann 4y ago
This who debate boils down to drawing hard lines on top of gradients. I find it uncomplicated to argue that a blastula is not a human (yet) and the potential for life is not a useful moral metric either (otherwise it'd be immoral not to maximize fertilization and child output). Everything in between a few cells and a baby is a gradient between next to nothing and complete humanness, and somehow we need to agree where lines should be drawn to binarize this gray area for moral and legal decision making. It's clearly an impossible task, so the fight will persist.
- rayiner 4y ago
  I generally agree, but to nitpick: I’d say a blastula is a “human” insofar as the term identifies a distinct organism of the human species. But it may not be a “person.”
allturtles 4y ago
If the moral logic of heaven mean that we shouldn't condemn infanticide (after all it just gets souls to heaven faster, and heaven is way better than earth), isn't that a problem for Christian doctrine, not the author of this paper?
- rayiner 4y ago
  No, because that paraphrasing is the author’s logic, not Christian doctrine.
  - boxed 4y ago
    It's not the doctrine. But it's the logical extrapolation.
    - rayiner 4y ago

civilized 4y ago

This is silly. You don't game God with cutesy game theory in Christianity. He says don't kill, you don't kill.

bombcar 4y ago
I mean depending on how you read some of the stories in the Bible you can try just that. He’ll let you, and then still win.
timbit42 4y ago
What if killing someone would save the lives of 2 or more people?
boxed 4y ago
1. He doesn't actually say "don't kill" 2. Abortion isn't mentioned in the bible.

karmakurtisaani 4y ago

Reasoning about the whims of an all-powerful being, whether through logic or thousand year old books is rather obnoxious.

parkerduckworth 4y ago

I see no dilemma. Violent death imparted on an unwilling victim isn’t justified simply because they can theoretically go to heaven.

boxed 4y ago
For a Christian it's not "theoretically". It's absolutely certain. The article argues a logical point from within the Christian framework. Obviously if you are outside that framework, nothing of it makes any sense.

hackeraccount 4y ago

You need to assume abortion is murder to be against it. If I went to an Animal Shelter every day, got a cat or a dog and then painlessly killed it when I got home no one would call me a murderer. A monster maybe but not a murderer. Everyone thinks that we owe dogs and cats a certain amount of respect. We acknowledge that sometimes we have to kill them but we're trying to create a world we do not have to do that. My problem is with people who are so eager to preserve their freedom of action if they one day want to kill their dog that they will not concede that doing that is something we all want to avoid. That the question we're discussing is not if it's right but how exactly we should go about making sure it doesn't ever have to happen. I understand there is a fear that people who kill their pets will be put in jail - and that lead to people getting hurt. Or that if we don't pay for people to have their pets killed then only rich will people will be able to kill their cats. It's possible to look at this from different angles and come to what might seem strange conclusions - I just don't think we should lose sight of the fundamentals.