The Problem of Good

[orangebox21]

It would be irresponsible for sin to not be punished and I agree it would be unjust for God to do so.  That is why "He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him."  This is the great exchange and we see both God's wrath (punishment of sin) and His mercy in the same event without violating His holiness.

It is irresponsible for God to create sin when there is no need for it. See? It's all spin. It's especially all spin when the entire narrative is being driven by a being that has an infinite number of choices it could have made.

I'm not sure what you mean 'need' but certainly it has been shown that sin is not without purpose.  If sin did not exist in the world then we would not know God's justice nor His mercy.

Because you're conflating the two events.  The result of the person's choice is a dead person.  The result of God's choice is resurrection and eternal life.  The person's choice does not resurrect nor give eternal life to the child, it only sends the child to the grave.

If we know with 100% certainty how God will act*, then the person absolutely can take that into account when taking their action.

I agree with you, but "taking something into account" isn't the issue.  The issue is determining who is responsible for what action and who has the authority and the responsibility in each given action.  Certainly you could seek to justify yourself in saying, 'It's ok if I kill this person, after all he/she will go to heaven.'  But again, who is doing and thus responsible for the killing, resurrecting, forgiving of sin, and giving of eternal life?  The doer of the action is the one responsible for it.

Saying this isn't the case is like saying I can shoot people with a gun with impunity because I didn't kill the person; I just pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. The trigger hit the firing pin, which ignited the powder, which propelled the bullet that killed the person, but I didn't kill them. You absolutely can hold me accountable for things when I know full well what the consequences would be.

No, I'm saying the person aborting [the means] the child is responsible for ending the child's life [in the same way that a person shooting another person [the means] it responsible for his/her] death.  

If we follow your thinking consistently, then you would be justified in murdering any Christian you wanted to.  After all you're simply sending them to heaven.  Do you agree with that statement?

I would agree that both are dispensing justice, but this is a false analogy.  The multiple people acting in this situation have both been given the authority to achieve the same end.  Both the judge and executioner have been given authority to dispense justice.  A person having an abortion has not been given the authority to resurrect nor to give eternal life.

So, morality isn't what you do, but who does it?

No I didn't say that.  

That's my point.  You have to assume that the suffering of a person is without good reason in order to consider an abortion merciful under these definitions.  With our limited understanding of the world and the future we can't make this assertion.

If god is all powerful, the only reason for the suffering is because God wants it. I don't consider that "good reason".

Please support this claim.

2)  How do you know the child who would have developed that technology wasn't aborted?

If that technology is so important, why doesn't God invent it? I thought he was merciful.

We're on a round-a-bout!

I appreciate that you don't want to put words in my mouth.  I would agree with you here, that's not a good argument nor do I think it is an accurate representation of God.  The reason God was justified in killing the people in the flood is clearly stated in Genesis and it's not because some of them would end up in heaven.  Our modern society has no problem with the concept of mercy.  We struggle to accept justice.

Again, morality isn't what you do, but who does it? That's not justice; that's some people (one entity) getting their way.

Again, you've misrepresented what I have said.  Read what I wrote above again.  Did I say that God is justified in killing the people in the flood because He is God [representative of your question:  "Morality isn't what you do, but who does it"].  Or did I say that God is justified in killing people in the flood for the reasons given in Genesis?

I love the Beethoven anti-abortion argument, its so precious and so wrong.

Anyways here's the counter:

You're a christian doctor in a country where abortion is legal but hard to get. A pregnant woman comes to you looking for an abortion recommendation. Her husband has a low paying job and her three previous children have died due to childhood disease, she cannot afford to raise a child and is deathly afraid the new baby will also die young. You have the power of life or death over the foetus. What do you do?

---

if you refused the abortion, congratulations! You've just started a chain of events which lead to the holocaust. The foetus I described was Hitler.

But the main reason neither argument works is because bith are specious. Both Beethoven and Hitler lived, speculating on alternatives is an exercise in fiction

---

I do not kill the child.  Even some of your own philosophers recognize that there is a distinction between the actual effects of actions and our expectations of them [actual vs. foreseeable consequence utilitarianism].