"Blessed are they who go around in circles, for they shall be called the 'big wheels'."

I wonder, Gina, if Jesus ever reached the point that he said to himself "If those disciples argue ONE MORE TIME about who's the greatest, I'm gonna...!" and then went off by himself and prayed.

And when you have a YOD that can obliterate people at the *molecular* level, well, it must have been really tempting.

How about a new post, asking if the pain women experience from abortion requires an emotional solution, a rational one, a spiritual one, or some combination thereof? It's hard to clean up all this mess we've made (and my deepest apologies for my contribution), but at least we can take down our tents and relocate to a new location, under your watchful eye.

Besides, pretty soon the weather outside will be frightful, and the fire will look delightful, and we'll want to go inside where it's warm. Crammed together like that, we might confront the issue of how difficult it is to ease a third party's suffering when we can hardly stop arguing amongst ourselves.

Hm - tradition has it that the Apostle Thomas went all the way to India, and died there. Ostensibly he was on a missionary journey. It occurs to me that another benefit India has is that it's about as far from Jerusalem (and ***THOSE*** guys) as you could get and still be in the Roman Empire. We, however, are called to bring salvation and healing to a lost and hurting world right where we are.

Thank you for your great patience with us. You yourself are an example of how to get a diverse and headstrong group all focusing on an issue instead of on ourselves and each other.

I attempted to close the thread, because we've reached the point now where we're talking in circles, and I don't think there's anything more to be gained by keeping the circles going. However, it appears that Joomla doesn't allow that option, at least not without making all the comments disappear from the site. So I'm going to re-open it, but ask you all to try to keep the discussion productive and civil. Thanks!

Kevin Peet: while I agree with much of what you say, you are still committing a fallacy similar to "LeeQuod's fallacy." That is, from the fact that abortion is in the unborn baby's interest, it is fallacious to infer that "it would be far better to abort every single being." After all, as you say, the best thing is to give God the most glory--and this may require letting some souls end up in hell (not to mention obedience to his commandments).

With this confusion cleared, I expect you can now see why abortion is still in the unborn baby's own interests--even if it's not a practice we should encourage. Nothing should stop us, however, from using this insight to console bereaved sinners who have already had abortions.

I'm thinking about Dr. Seuss's Grinch.

The older generation is content to know who someone is. The younger generation, in contrast, insists on knowing the backstory: what is it that turned Batman into Batman, how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, and so on. The difference is neither here nor there; it simply exists.

When I was a small child, I was content to simply know that the Grinch was cruel and mean. I really didn't get too worked up about what might have made him that way. This is anathema to my daughters, who must know what it is that makes someone turn anti-social.

One of the more common excuses that movies provide is that a character was deeply affected by a combination of trauma and rejection. And this causes the person to reject in turn, then to set up a potentially fatal cycle of bad acts followed by rejection followed by more bad acts, and so on.

In some cases the drama of the story comes from the villain deliberately provoking rejection but not getting it, then becoming more provocative, all the while growing increasingly puzzled. One possible ending in this circumstance is the "big payback" all at once. The other is that the villain repents and is redeemed.

Most of us know that it's this second result that is why Jesus commanded us to pray for those who (in the KJV) despitefully use us.

But getting back on topic, I think about rejection. I think about my friend whose father said "You're the reason I'm in this unhappy marriage to your mother" - and meant all the bitterness that is implied. Gina in her Her.meneutics article ( http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2011/12/unwanted_girls_defy_sexism_in.html ) talks about unwanted girls in India who are literally named that way. And of course, actually killing someone is the firmest way we could reject them.

I wonder if this doesn't account for much of the psychological trauma that post-abortive women experience. They gave the ultimate form of rejection to someone. And whenever they themselves long for acceptance, they also realize that their baby longed for the same sort of acceptance.

A society that is cruel and mean and rejects people will naturally give rise to those who see themselves as unworthy of acceptance. Maybe this explains some of the hostility toward Christians: if I'm rejected early on, I develop a worldview in which I must be a special target for rejection; I become so convinced of my worldview that I go about making it a self-fulfilling prophecy by pressing people to reject me; I find Christians, who are expected to accept anyone, and I try to prove that they won't accept *me* - which confirms my warped view of my status in the world. If some people hate me and others love me and it's hard to tell one from the other, I can become overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance. It's far simpler, mentally, if I believe that everyone rejects me and by golly I can reject 'em right back.

Is that the reason the Grinch goes down to steal all the Whoville Christmas cheer?

Maybe someone younger, who's better at backstories than I am, can take it from here.

I just know that, difficult though I find it to be, I'm called to love the unlovely - including those who are committed to proving they are unlovable. That means I have to try to both stop their bad behavior but also to accept them in spite of their behavior.

I find this to be impossible. I need supernatural help.

Fortunately, it's available.

Pardon me; I've gotta get the trees and presents back up and then carve the roast beast...

If we adopt Kevin V's methods, we must say that he has conceded (whether or not he wants to admit it) that is entirely legitimate for a woman to console herself with this true thought: "My abortion may have saved my innocent baby from eternal condemnation in hell."

In fact, Kevin V., if you wish to maintain your other denials, you should avoid reflecting upon the following scenario.

Suppose that a new virus arises which infects infants, rendering the infected blind, paralyzed and further debilitated by life-long chronic pain. The virus, however, only at attacks half of the infant population. And, although susceptibility to the virus is genetically determined, genetic testing is unable to identify which infants are not susceptible. There is, however, a safe and effective vaccine.

Now here are the questions. When a mother vaccinates her infant child from this terrifying virus, isn't she acting in that child's interest? Wouldn't we say that it is in the child's own interest to receive the vaccination?

I expect you'll have a strangely difficult time answering these questions.

Kostya, this is my last post on the subject, because you've already conceded (whether or not you want to admit it).

You asked about 1-10, conveniently trying to steer away from a conclusion that you now realize doesn't hold up. Actually, a fatal flaw THROUGHOUT the argument you presented here is the utter subjectiveness of several of the terms. (Reread it and try to argue with a straight face that it's not riddled with this shortcoming.) Once someone has given a valid reason to not accept such a term, everything collapses.

I did that with the "best interest" concept. You were unable or unwilling to refute what I said about the many adult Christians for whom abortion would not have been in their best interest, and, in fact, would have denied them of a very rich experience.

When the people in question would say that living turned out to be in their best interest, what position are you in to say they would have been better off being killed in the womb? Even if you still, somehow, hold to that position, you would in all honesty have to at least admit that there is no clear-cut objective standard to prove that those people are wrong about the richness of their lives.

Thus, #14 collapses. The universal conclusion is thoroughly disproven by the millions of examples for whom abortion would not have been in their "best interest."

This is the key point that you have conceded by your inability or refusal to tell us how those fulfilled Christians haven't actually lived a life worth living. Why not just have the "integrity" to admit that even if a person swallows all of the subjectiveness in 1-13, the conclusion still overreaches greatly by ignoring all of the living examples to the contrary? That much is obvious by now, as surely any person with the ability to reason would agree.

Instead, you resort to your previous appeal to sentiment and emotionalism by asking if we still shouldn't comfort the woman by letting her believe she "may have" prevented damnation for her child. I've already pointed out how the "There's a possibility" tactic would be woefully insufficient to comfort the grieving, truly caring parent of a young child who died. The same applies to the woman who had an abortion and now realizes what a terrible thing she's done. If she really is conscientious about it, that attempt at comforting her will fall well short of the mark.

Moreover, I strongly disagree with your notion that this attempt at consolation is the right approach for the Christian. For one thing, we can tell her that her child is with Jesus without resorting to percentage games about what kind of fate the child might or might not have otherwise met, or denying the possibility that the child was robbed of a wonderful life.

Just as important, we can assure her that God is willing to forgive actions that even we think are unforgivable. She can be made to understand that if she is truly repentant about the abortion, God has forgiven it. He's moved on, and now, so can she.

Kostya, I wish you well. If you hang around here long enough, there will probably be some debates where we side with each other against the Republicans. I this case, we disagree. Take care.

.
Went several rounds with this spurious and pernicious argument over at First Things – for those who are interested in additional cogent refutations of (cough) “Kostya’s” obsession.

http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/01/moral-blind-spots/

P.S. For those who don’t want to waste the time, Mr. Gilson sums it up by calling it a “charade”.

"There is nothing in the earthly life for which it is worth risking eternal suffering and conscious separation from God."

C.S. Lewis made the comment once that one accusation which can be made against God is that He is a gambler. He made the universe, knowing full well the awful consequences that would follow, including finally the death of His own beloved Son.

But in this creation, He has also knowingly and willingly created something which risks "eternal suffering and conscious separation from God."

To me, the final (and even intermediate) purpose of everything is not based around any part of creation, including human beings, but is instead about the glory of God, especially as revealed in His Son. And it seems to me that the entire foundation of the argument as presented is human-focused, and therefore at root there is something rotten in it.

In addition, I will agree that, taken to its monstrous end, it does say it would be far better to abort every single human being-- but then, when you frame it that way, then it becomes more glaring how, in some ways that are mysterious to us, God is glorified both in the fact and the character of creation. And therefore it is the height of presumption to impose our own merely human values ("it's in the best interest of...") over those of our sovereign and good Creator and Savior.

Kevin V, You are thoughtful, but slightly hasty. Because you are thoughtful, I expect that you accept that abortion has plausibly saved some unborn babies from eternal condemnation in hell (step 10, in the "Easing the suffering" argument). Do you agree? (If not, then please identify and explain the part of the argument from steps 1-10 that you find implausible.)

If, on the other hand, you agree, then put yourself in the position of the evangelical mother who has had, to her great regret and sorrow, an abortion. Ask yourself this: does this woman know that her aborted baby was not one of those who was thereby saved from eternal condemnation in hell?

Presumably not. But if not, then isn't it legitimate for her to think this: "my abortion may have saved my innocent baby from eternal condemnation in hell"?

[And to Kim: Evangelical.]

Kostya,

So that we might understand your perspective a little better, what is your faith background?

One tiny but important detail to note: not all the bloggers and responders are Evangelicals.

"offering bereaved sinners a consoling truth from the Christian worldview."

The only consoling truth for sinners from the Christian worldview is that Jesus died for their sins and by accepting Him they can find forgiveness.

No amount of reasoned argument can overcome the guilt of sin. Women who have had an abortion are not helped by rationalizations, but by meeting the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Mine is not a poorly reasoned emotional reaction. It is a case of eisegesis to see in my words anything other than bemusement at yet another deeply flawed argument, and sympathy for those friends of mine who I know become understandably distraught when this topic is discussed.

If something is in someone's interest, yet is sinful, does that mean God does not have goodwill toward that person? Wouldn't God want what is in that person's interest, and therefore wouldn't God declare it to be not sinful? See "Equivocation, Fallacy of".

Yawn.

Kostya, the "compelling" argument you presented here might seem clever on its face, but it doesn't hold up under even minimal scrutiny.

"Therefore, abortion is in the unborn baby's best interest." Which unborn baby? For the child who would have grown up to lead a happy, prosperous, fulfilling life in Christ, the abortion was not a favor. It would be illogical to deny that this would be the case with at least a fair number of the aborted. So the best that leaves the theoretical consoler with is, "Well, odds are...." Kostya, if your young child--not yet at the age of accountability--were murdered, would that really be of consolation? The answer of a truly loving parent would be, "No." Anyone heartless and uncaring enough to answer otherwise would not need consoling. So now the consolation rationale is gone.

It is also flawed logic to defend the killing of all because it eliminated the risk for some. Now, you'll once again want to say that you aren't justifying abortion, just saying it's in the baby's best interest. Since I've already established that it isn't in the best interest of ALL babies, your argument places the interest of some over that of others. Specifically, it favors the ones who would have grown up to be unrepentantly evil over those who would have walked with God, the latter having been robbed of the fulfilling life I alluded to earlier.

At this point, you might want to downplay the virtues and pleasures of such a life, at least in comparison to Heaven. Logically speaking, however, just because one thing isn't nearly as good as another, that doesn't make the former not worthwhile or not in one's best interest. There are many people who can attest to the joys of their Christian walk. For them, not having been aborted has meant getting to enjoy both this earthly life AND the one to come. This stands as solid refutation of the universal conclusion reached in #14.

Since you say you intended the argument to be employed retroactively, as a way of offering consolation, it is also fair to point out retroactively the many people who are better off not having had that "risk" removed. Lest you now wish to modify the conclusion to "some unborn babies," keep in mind that your consolation would now be reduced to, "Well, according to the percentages,...."

Small consolation, that.

I have offered a way to use the Christian worldview to console bereaved sinners who have had abortions. I have provided an argument (see "Easing the suffering" below) for thinking that these abortions, however sinful, are likely in the unborn baby's own interest. The careful reader will notice that the critics of my argument, however vehement, have not addressed themselves to the actual argument (or, if they did, they repeated obvious fallacies in doing so). While I don't so much mind the accusations directed to myself, I would find it highly unfortunate if these poorly reasoned emotional reactions of a few should obstruct the consolation that this insight from the Christian worldview might provide for hurting sinners.

So I hope that other readers will attend to my suggestions with greater care and integrity.

.
You’re right, Kostya, this is a question of integrity.

In Matthew 22, three different groups tried three different ploys to entrap Jesus with logic they were sure would force him to concede. Since we’re sharing scriptures, I’ll borrow your language verbatim and suggest “you'd do well to think about” and “you should read” verses 15 to the end of the chapter, with special emphasis on verse 18.

I’ve already stated – more than once – that there are other powerful, time-honored, and unobjectionable consolations compatible with the Christian worldview that can be and have been used – with wonderful efficacy -- to comfort the grieving. That being the case, why the unyielding insistence on concession to your perverse argument? Care to explain?

My objective assessment of the argument is that it is a thoroughgoing subterfuge. That’s what’s wrong with the argument, in my objective assessment.

And I’ll be more than glad to join you in your invitation to attack fallacious inferences. Why don’t we start by attacking the fallacious inference that there is merit to your specious casuistry? There is none.

One can be too clever by half, you know, thinking one’s logic is water-tight, when in reality one is merely revealing one’s true motive for all to see.
--
“Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” --James 3:13-17

Rolley, you seem to be suggesting that the only way to maintain allegiance to the pro-life cause is for evangelicals to conceal the fact that abortion is likely in the unborn baby's own interest. That strikes me as a crisis of integrity.

It is also troubling that you would deny a bereaved sinner some of the consolation of the Christian worldview simply because others might fallaciously draw false inferences from it. Why not simply join me in attacking the fallacious inferences? You don't need run from sound argumentation; you certainly don't need to withhold consolation from bereaved mothers.

Finally, you seem to be governed more by emotional reaction to the argument's conclusion than by an objective assessment of the argument. If the conclusion challenges a long held and cherished belief of yours, then you should either show what is wrong with the argument, or you should allow yourself to question your cherished belief.

In other words, address yourself to the argument. Do the right thing.

Kostya, do you really think if Christians took your argument seriously and ascribed respectability to it – i.e. made it a talking point for post-abortion grief counseling – do you really think it would not be picked up on and grossly abused by those who are already performing outlandishly disingenuous logical gymnastics to justify abortion? And if it is calculated to have that catastrophic effect, why, when there are other and better ways to counsel, would anyone want to hazard it? Are you really pro-life?

As I said earlier, there are already time-honored and widely-accepted Biblical consolations to draw upon, and yes, it is almost universally-accepted within Christendom that those who die in infancy go to heaven. But to construct a grisly logic that concludes “abortion is in the unborn baby’s interest” is not only crass, it is criminal; and not only criminal, but positively diabolical, because its unavoidable tendency is to give powerful incentive to those seeking to justify the murder-that-is-abortion – in the name of God!

The whole argument begs an examination of motives. It has all the appearances of rationalizing divine sanction for abortion under the guise of comforting the bereaved. The burden is on you to demonstrate convincingly it is something else and that concerns expressed by me and others who find it abhorrent are unfounded.

Rolley, the problem is that your fourth claim doesn't follow from the previous claims. You'd do well to think about the phrase "God is not willing..." It's a phrase with which the theologians like to tussle. It presumably just means something like this: it is not God's first choice (or his own preference) that people sin against him. But, of course, he allows it to happen (for his own reasons).

Likewise, God could have prevented sin from entering the world by simply refusing to create the world. But he has his own reasons for creating the world (even though it may not be in the best interest of every creature in that world, which includes Satan, the beast, and the false prophet, concerning which you should read Revelation 20:10: "They shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever").

.
Kostya, answer my question and I’ll answer yours.

Building on your conclusion that abortion is in the baby’s best interest, which of the following corollary premises do YOU wish to deny?

(1) God says He is not willing that any should perish.

(2) He has the power to take the life of any/every human being at any time.

(3) He has the moral right to take the life of any/every human being at any time.

(4) Since abortion insures the salvation of the unborn baby, if God really means it when He says He’s not willing that any should perish He should insure the salvation of all the human race by having everyone die before they are born or have the chance to reject Him.

Every respondent to my "Easing the suffering" argument is committing the same basic fallacy.

My argument (see below) shows that abortion is in the unborn baby's interest. It is a fallacy to assume that, from such a conclusion, one can jump to the further unfounded conclusion that abortion is not sinful, or that it is what we should do. To make such a leap, the readers seem to be assuming that, if an action is in someone's interest, then we should perform it. Very strange.

I would have expected that students of the Christian worldview wouldn't so easily fall for such a fallacy (much less repeat it and defend it). Chuck Colson needs to give these folks a two minute warning.

So, Kostya, using your obtuse (not to mention unbiblical) logic, we really should abort all babies... or all children for that matter who have yet to reach what some call "an age of accountability". Clearly a person who advocates dismemberment of babies since that's not as bad as hell is someone who has said babies' best interests in mind!