Abortion is love

[robvalue]

First off, it is not your decision to make. Parents are stewards of their children; they are not their owners. Each person owns their own life. Secondly, you are not considering the role of God in your hypothetical game. God’s options would be:

1. The parent and child both lead righteous lives: Heaven +2, Hell 0
2. The parent unrighteously kills the child: Heaven +1, Hell +1
3. The parent lives righteously, but the child does not: Heaven +1, Hell: +1
4. The parent is otherwise unrighteous and the child becomes wicked: Heaven 0, Hell 2

To my mind, that’s pretty much a wash without taking into consideration of various doctrines concerning eternal security, election, etc.

You're assuming your God is the right God, completely ignoring my third point in the OP. Pick the wrong one and everyone loses. Also, I thought sins could be forgiven so why is the murdering parent going to hell? They can apologise, right? I thought Jesus died for our sins or something?

[robvalue]

Failed analogy is failed -_-

Yeah, it seems like the argument is: god is older than you, so he can do whatever he wants.

It's scary how many people are ok with "might makes right".

[Longhorn]

@ Neim: Argument from ignorance is failed.

Argument from ignorance how exactly?

Are you really comparing watching suitable/unsuitable content to (in your eyes) murder?

Your analogy shouldve went like this:

I kill cats, I'm pleased. My daughter kills cats, I'm displeased. Do as I say not as I do, motherfucker.

You're still missing the point. If god doesn't want fetuses to be killed, why does he allow situations in which fetuses being killed is the only or most probable possible outcome?

[John V]

Argument from ignorance how exactly?

You make an argument in the form of a question with no support. That's an argument from ignorance.

Are you really comparing watching suitable/unsuitable content to murder?

The argument was generalized to pleasing/displeasing. If you now specifically want killing, then: I can kill many kinds of animals to eat them even though I don't need meat to survive. I can kill many kinds of animals just because I consider them to be pests. I cannot kill human beings for those reasons. When I ask atheists why this is so, the usual reason is that we have superior rights (including rights over life and death) to other species due to our superior intelligence. Problem for them is that, since god has superior intelligence to humans, you should likewise recognize that he has such rights over humans.

[John V]

It's scary how many people are ok with "might makes right".

Cows in a slaughterhouse might think the same about us. I still see beef in the grocery store.

ETA: That's a particularly bad comment considering abortion is part of the conversation.

[Longhorn]

How about read and address the whole post instead of picking two lines?

[robvalue]

It's scary how many people are ok with "might makes right".

Cows in a slaughterhouse might think the same about us. I still see beef in the grocery store.

ETA: That's a particularly bad comment considering abortion is part of the conversation.

Yeah well, I am entirely on the cow's side. I think society is sick for applying the same "might is right" against animals that you are suggesting is OK for God. Sadly it's not something I can stop.

[John V]

He said to multiply and fill the earth, but he lets fetuses die. Abortion is still a nono though.

Sense? Who needs it.

Apparently you don't. Atheists tend to cling to this notion that God cannot have certain rules for humans that don't apply to himself. They give no reasoning (that holds up anyway) for that position. We don't hold to that position ourselves. Some humans have rights that other humans don't have. Humans give ourselves rights that we don't give to animals.

@ Neim: You didn't address every line of this post. So, no, I'll do as you do and address what I choose.

[John V]

Cows in a slaughterhouse might think the same about us. I still see beef in the grocery store.

ETA: That's a particularly bad comment considering abortion is part of the conversation.

Yeah well, I am entirely on the cow's side. I think society is sick for applying the same "might is right" against animals that you are suggesting is OK for God. Sadly it's not something I can stop.

Are you on the aborted baby's side? If not, why not?

Since you think most of society is sick, it makes sense that a just god would judge them.

"Sadly it's not something I can stop" implies that you would stop it if it were in your power...might is right?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Argument from ignorance how exactly?

You make an argument in the form of a question with no support. That's an argument from ignorance.

Are you really comparing watching suitable/unsuitable content to murder?

The argument was generalized to pleasing/displeasing. If you now specifically want killing, then: I can kill many kinds of animals to eat them even though I don't need meat to survive. I can kill many kinds of animals just because I consider them to be pests. I cannot kill human beings for those reasons. When I ask atheists why this is so, the usual reason is that we have superior rights (including rights over life and death) to other species due to our superior intelligence. Problem for them is that, since god has superior intelligence to humans, you should likewise recognize that he has such rights over humans.

I gave you kudos because I think it is a novel argument. Nevertheless I think the dividing line is based on sentience not degree of intelligence.