When OU’s Pro-Life Ambassadors hosted the Justice for All event last November (the giant pictures of aborted fetuses on the South Oval), I probably had more conversations about abortion than ever before.
Some of those conversations centered on whether the government should do something about abortion, but more rested on the more pivotal issue of whether the fetus had a right to life.
Interestingly, it wasn’t until last Friday in Tarrant Carter’s opinion column that I heard an argument advancing the idea that the Christian God was not pro-life.
His main argument rests on two main premises that make God responsible for miscarriages.
First, more abortions (terminations of pregnancies) are miscarriages than are caused by humans.
Second, Carter quotes some Christians saying of death, “‘It was God’s will.’” Carter also uses the term “some deaths” once. But if he really meant “some,” then he has offered no guidance on deciding for which specific deaths God bears responsibility.
So I think his second premise is likely that God bears responsibility for deaths in general. Therefore, God is responsible for more abortions (miscarriages) than humans are. As a principle, Carter says we should judge by actions, not by words.
So, judging by God’s actions, God is not pro-life where pro-life means to be absolutely opposed to abortion. Carter summarizes his point thus: “How can somebody that is responsible for the nearly one-fourth of naturally occurring abortions be considered pro-life?”
I would like to note three problems with Carter’s argument. First, its definitions of abortion, miscarriage and pro-life don’t make sense for the abortion debate. It roughly defines miscarriages as “abortions by non-human causes” and to be pro-life as being “absolutely opposed to all abortion” so that being pro-life includes being opposed to miscarriages.
These definitions make sense if abortion means “the termination of a pregnancy.” But being pro-life is not holding an absolutist stance against abortion when abortion means “the termination of a pregnancy” because, properly speaking, to be pro-life involves two specific positions on abortion.
First, pro-life includes an ethical position involving some variation on abortion’s moral wrongness.
Second, pro-life is a political/legal position involving a government abolition of abortion’s practice. For us to talk about whether abortion is morally wrong, it has to involve abortion as an action that humans do or negligently allow others to do.
Abortion’s definition in this case would be the induced termination of a pregnancy, as put forward by the American Heritage Dictionary.
To put it bluntly, miscarriages don’t qualify as abortions under a definition of abortions we would use for a debate about the ethics of the act. So while miscarriages aren’t relevant to an ethics discussion about abortion, Carter could still try to show that God is ethically responsible for them, and indeed he does.
My second problem is with this attempt. Carter’s argument moves from his second premise of God’s responsibility “in some way” for deaths to a contrast between God’s ethical responsibility for miscarriages and human responsibility for abortions.
However, he jumps from a premise that the Christian might grant – God is responsible “in some way” for death – to a conclusion that requires God being responsible in a specifically ethical way.
Further, it would not seem to follow that miscarriages would be in God’s plan in an ethically responsible way without the human-caused abortions being in God’s plan in an ethically responsible way. In that vein, it would seem to me that if we would work the kinks out of Carter’s argument, we would be moving toward some argument that would closely resemble the problem of evil.
But that moves away from whether the Christian God is pro-life toward whether the Christian God exists at all.
Third, Carter’s argument implies that we can judge the God of the Bible’s moral attributes by looking at things in the human experience. But the evil in the human experience like miscarriages, according to the God of the Bible, has resulted from human rebellion against God in the Garden of Eden.
The fact that human experience continues despite our rebellion lets us “judge” the God of the Bible – as a God who patiently and mercifully has not yet brought his day of justice when he will right the evils of the human race.
The Bible tells us why: God waits so that he may show mercy to those who, turning away from evils like abortion and promiscuity and pride, look to the Lord and savior Jesus Christ, who has borne their guilt and shame on the cross.
All in all, the argument is lacking.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
JimmyF 2 years, 7 months ago
Oops, I meant to write "because" instead of "unless" in the first post at the beginning of the last paragraph.
Rhology 2 years, 7 months ago
@JimmyF,
Yes, you are performing an internal critique of Haines' position, and Haines' is the biblical position. That's why you need to provide evidence that you are consistently and properly using the Bible. I'm not saying or thinking you believe the Bible, but you're critiquing it from the inside, so you need to make sure you're doing it right or else abandon the argument.
Look at it this way - IF the Bible asserts a clear Creator/creature distinction, then your criticism of the God of the Bible on the grounds that it's unjust that He be "exempt" from the laws He demands of humans dissolves b/c of the distinction. If He is the final Judge (think of Him as a Supreme Court), the convict has no grounds to judge the judge.
You said: --The only thing I have implied is that morality and logic have to be consistent or we are simply talking about opinion.--
And they ARE consistent on Christianity - humans must obey the Law of God.
On not-Christianity, what is your consistent morality? Tell me about your worldview - what is the basis for morality? The standard?
You said: --You will notice that there is no loop hole called justification that somehow doesn’t make you a hypocrite.--
The law is "don't murder". God doesn't murder. QED. He KILLS, but under certain circumstances, biblically as I explained, I am also permitted to kill. You need to prove why God is wrong to put sinful enemies of God to death.
--I mean are you going to honestly believe that God can possess characteristics of A (being pro-life) and characteristics of not A (not being pro-life) at the same time?--
I don't even know what this means. "God is pro-life" means nothing more or less than "God has commanded you not to murder people, and babies are people. Little people." "Pro-life" has a specific meaning for this place and time. Doesn't mean that we expect God to allow people to live forever on this Earth.
(cont)
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@Rhology
The definition you gave is not the actual definition of murder. Your statement would classify suicides, plane crash deaths and friendly-fire kills as murders for example.
"Now we're actually straying from the fairly narrow topic (...)"
Well, it is a more interesting topic though. Anyway, you and JimmyF are theists, and you are both arguing about your godly beliefs. I am not going to back up christian rhetoric, I have nothing to do with it.
JimmyF 2 years, 7 months ago
At the end you finally get to your real objection: people cannot judge God’s moral attributes by looking at human experience. So if we cannot use our human experiences how are we to discern his will or what he thinks is good? Magic? A sixth sense?
“But the evil in the human experience like miscarriages, according to the God of the Bible, has resulted from human rebellion against God in the Garden of Eden.” So now you say that miscarriage is an evil and God punishes the whole human race for the actions of some retards thousands of years ago. But you seem to be conceding to what Mr. Carter was alluding to. God clearly doesn’t mind the deaths of some conceived individuals. As you are arguing miscarriages are there to prove a point to humanity. So any rational being that has the power to choose whatever actions they want and then chooses to have some people aborted or miscarried cannot be considered pro-life. Or if you want to take the ultra exclusive route you took in your previous definition, then God or any other non-human rational being has to be agnostic on the issue because they are not human and the pro-life position is a strictly human position.
All in all, your assumptions about God and your super exclusive definition of abortion are preventing you from looking at the situation objectively which lead to a seriously flawed argument that needs to be thought through some more.
JimmyF 2 years, 7 months ago
Your nit picking of definitions make no sense in response to Mr. Carter’s argument. First of all, I would recommend you look up the definition of spontaneous abortions. However, the bigger question is: why is abortion wrong? It is wrong according to most pro-life people because it is understood that people can do something to prevent it and they are aware of how unethical it is. Most people would probably grant that humans do not need to have an anti-miscarriage stance in order to be pro-life because they really cannot do something to prevent it (many times the spontaneous abortion occurs so early in the pregnancy that the mother is unaware). So the mother in this case could not be ethically responsible for the naturally occurring abortion. This is where I think Mr. Carter is on to something because an all-powerful god who can do something about it is responsible for his lack of actions.
Your second definition of abortion is a little clearer. You said, “for us to talk about whether abortion is morally wrong, it has to involve abortion as an action that humans do or negligently allow others to do.” Plug in God for humans and his creation for others and you have: for us to talk about whether abortion is morally wrong, it has to involve abortion as an action that God does or negligently allows his creation to do. So either God intentionally kills some conceived individuals or he does nothing and is negligent when the natural process of miscarriage occurs.
It’s pretty simple: God cannot be considered pro-life by using your own definition unless you are going to take the position that only human beings can have a position on abortion. If you make your definition so exclusive as to only allow humans to be a part of it, then God clearly cannot take a stance on the issue according to your own definition. This would make God agnostic on the issue because he couldn’t have an affirmative stance on the wrongness of abortion. So Mr. Carter would be right that God is not pro-life but for a different reason – only humans can have an ethical stance on the issue.
Rhology 2 years, 7 months ago
@dio, You said: --No, it is the intentional and unlawful killing of a person by another person. Therefore to have a murder you need: 1) at least two persons, 2) a killing, 3) an intent, and 4) a legal framework.--
I agree with that, actually, but it doesn't conflict with my own definition. And it deals a blow to JimmyF's "reasoning" and Tarrant Carter's column.
--An embryo is not a person.--
Now we're actually straying from the fairly narrow topic of these two columns. Tempting as it is, let's not go there; let's stay on topic.
I note again that this point, if true, deals yet another blow to JimmyF and Carter. It's strange to be allies, but here we are anyway! :-D
JimmyF 2 years, 7 months ago
Just so you know assertions can be a two-way street. Asserting things like a creator/creature distinction or I need a biblical case for my position doesn’t make it true. I was making a deconstructive argument in response to Jared Haines which require no assertions. You do realize that by using basic logic you can show a person’s argument false without have to establish positive claims? The only thing I have unconsciously asserted is the basic rules of logic and reason (which I think is assumed in any discussion these days). You are the one who is asserting all these special pleadings and distinctions that must be made, not me.
Again one does not have to be a “one-man moral Pope” in order to shows logical flaws and fallacies in an argument. I have made to argument for any type of morality. The only thing I have implied is that morality and logic have to be consistent or we are simply talking about opinion.
I urge you grab a dictionary and look up the word hypocrisy. You will notice that there is no loop hole called justification that somehow doesn’t make you a hypocrite. Now, you can argue that somebody’s specific action (like called killing a conceived person) is justified, but justification and hypocrisy are two different categories. Somebody could be a justified to act but still be a hypocrite. The concept of justification does not interfere with the concept of hypocrisy in any way. So try again with a different rationalization.
Rhology 2 years, 7 months ago
@Firefly21,
In your zeal to make sure the man doesn't escape his responsibility (and I agree), you forgot there's one other person involved. The child. The issue is whether it is OK to choose to murder a child.
@JimmyF,
You need, badly, to remember that this column and its antecedent are very specifically directing a critique at the biblical conception of God, so in order to respond properly and coherently, you need to present a biblical case for your position. Also, reading over your comment, you made no substantive response to almost anythg I said, acting like I hadn't commented at all. Do better. Simply asserting things like "you have a warped sense of reality" gets no one anywhere. I'll respond in kind: "Nuh UH! YOU have a warped sense of reality, n008!!!!11"
Now, getting back to the actual topic, you once again ignore the Creator/creature distinction, but the Bible makes that distinction extremely clear. You assert God has "responsibility" but offer no reason to think that you have any idea what you're talking about. You apparently think yourself a one-man moral Pope, judging God. On what basis do you judge God? How do YOU know what is objectively right and wrong, normative for anyone else, you judgmental intolerant bigot?
You said: --This type of god is a HYPOCRITE. He says one thing and does another.--
You neglected to take into acct that I already explained that. Anytime God kills someone, He is fully justified b/c they are a sinner and He is their Creator and Judge. Try again.
You said: --Last time a check reading was a common human experience so your comment adds nothing here.--
Dealt with that too. Try again.
You said: --Are you justified in killing the beings you created just because they did something you didn’t like? --
1) Sin is more than just "something God doesn't like". It's breaking of His law with full intent, defying Him and spitting in His face, over and over again. It was such an insurmountable problem that God paid the ultimate price in order to save people - send His own Son to die in the place of those would repent and believe. To question that is to lessen the value of Jesus Christ Himself. (And I urge you not to do that.) 2) On what basis do you judge God's Law to be overly harsh? Make sure to inform us to what objective moral standard you are appealing in your answer (and b/c I'm not too smart, make sure to let me know argue for its objectivity and normativity to ppl other than yourself).
Rhology 2 years, 7 months ago
JimmyF, Let me respond to each paragraph. 1) No, abortion is wrong b/c it's murdering a baby. Murder is defined as the unjustified taking of a human life. It's taking an action to destroy a life. It's no more complicated than that. God is justified, however, in taking any life at any time, b/c all are sinners. It's by His patience and mercy that we live every second; we don't live b/c we deserve to live. A miscarriage is an action of God, not a lack of action - it's ending the life of a sinful human at a certain point, just like the death by natural causes of a 100-yr-old person. Hopefully that will help reset your thinking and your starting point to the biblical one.
2) God intentionally kills ALL conceived individuals. When's the last time you knew someone who lived forever?
But I as a human have authority and justification to end another sinner's life only sometimes, such as in defense of my wife and children from a serial killer, or in a just war, or as a duly-appointed representative of a legal gov't to execute a convicted capital criminal (see Romans 13). No other time. But God is the one who planned out the days of every person.
3) God's position is this: Don't murder. An abortion is murder. That's clear enough. He will judge every murderer, and that's a moral position in itself.
4) You ask how we can know anything about God. I agree - we don't know much about Him, unless He reveals Himself. Fortunately for us, He did - in the Bible. No need for 'magic' or a 6th sense. Reading, recognising, and submitting are not identical to judging.
Anyway, the main problem with this reasoning from JimmyF is that it conflates God with man. Sounds familiar, really.
God is not a human. He is the Creator and has the right to take life, just as He gave it. Indeed, He takes all life. Doesn't everything die? Of course, and it's all His "fault".
He can take life at any time, be it adult or really young, and it is 100% justified, especially human life since all are sinners. The question is: What actions is man justified in undertaking? Murder of human life is not among them. Abortion is therefore unjustifiable. It's an easy argument to deal with; I don't know why anyone would call it sthg the pro-life mvmt "refuses" to deal with. Let me suggest Randy Alcorn's book on pro-life answers. It's the best I've ever seen.
Peace, Rhology
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@soonerborn88
"So are you saying that a death is only a murder if it was planned out?"
Murder needs not to be planned. See the given definition.
"What about people killed in car accidents? The driver didn't plan to go out a kill someone, but they still can get charged with murder."
That is called manslaughter. Look it up.
"What about a person who snaps and kills a person with out having planned it?"
If there is malice, the intent to kill, then it is murder, that it was planned or not.
"Are you saying these killings can't be considered murders since they aren't intentional?"
No intent, no murder. That is the actual legal definition of murder. Look it up.
Firefly21 2 years, 7 months ago
I have a problem with organizations like pro-life ambassadors. They use scare tactics which will turn anyone off. Additionally, after speaking with one of their representatives, I came to the conclusion that many of their ideas about abortion are based on sexism. I was told if a woman decides to have unprotected sex, like in the case of a one-night-stand, she has to live with the consequences. So, I asked, what about a man? Does he not have any consequences? The response was no, oh well. Hmm, this perception seems somewhat skewed...
Also regarding the argument that God creates life and we have no right to take it away. Let me remind people that there is a separation of church and state. The argument of whether abortion should be legal or not does not involve religion. In the United States that argument cannot and should not hold up. The issue is whether or not a woman has a right to choose. So, please, lets keep God, Allah, whatever other religion, out of it
dio 2 years, 7 months ago
@Rhology
"Murder is defined as the unjustified taking of a human life."
No, it is the intentional and unlawful killing of a person by another person. Therefore to have a murder you need: 1) at least two persons, 2) a killing, 3) an intent, and 4) a legal framework.
"No, abortion is wrong b/c it's murdering a baby."
An embryo is not a person. There is a difference between a person and a biological human. From a biological point of view, an embryo is not a fully formed human being. No brain activity before it reaches the fetal stage so it has no consciousness to begin with.
Besides this, there are medical cases for which a fetus is doomed and an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the mother (eg. birth defects, ectopic pregnancy, placental abruption, physical trauma, etc).
"Hopefully that will help reset your thinking and your starting point to the biblical one." + all the religious rambling that follows:
Just snap out of your insanity.
JimmyF 2 years, 7 months ago
I’m not sure I should waste my time responding because by the things you have said in your comment it is clear you have a warped sense of reality. Why is God justified in killing whoever he feels like? Because he can because passes judgment and says so?
The question was not about justified or not. It was about why an action is wrong. You even admitted that abortion is wrong because it is murdering a baby. Again you make a restrictive application of the concept of murder in order to weasel your way around God’s responsibility. The concept must apply to all rational beings or we are just make special pleading for people that are not humans. Why must your definitions only apply to humans and not other beings that are rational?
“God’s position is this: don’t murder”. You just like many others fail to make the distinction. He judges others who murder yet does not judge himself. This type of god is a HYPOCRITE. He says one thing and does another. How can any rational being be considered to have an attribute (pro-life) when he actively does the opposite of that attribute (“intentionally kills all conceived individuals” to use your own words)? This claim cannot be logically true. One cannot say one thing and yet do another and still be considered to have that attribute.
You need to read my statements and Jared Haines in regards to human experience. He said we cannot judge God’s moral attributes by looking at things in human experience. This statement cannot be true if we are to know anything about God’s nature. Last time a check reading was a common human experience so your comment adds nothing here.
Anyway the main problem with your reasoning is that you comment a special pleading fallacy when talking about God. You are saying that nobody can judge God’s actions because he is above all standards except his own. Funny thing is God fails his on prescribed standards (like don’t murder).
I got a hypothetical for you: Let’s say that you are some all-powerful being and happen to create a race of beings on another planet. You write a book and detail the activity that you don’t like. Are you justified in killing the beings you created just because they did something you didn’t like? Or are you justified in condemning and murdering the entire race because of the actions of a few? If you answer yes to any of the questions than you are an immoral ass.
BrianCBiggs 2 years, 7 months ago
JimmyF,
You have recast Jared's definitions and distinctions, posit a problem (which Jared addresses), and declared him to be wrong.
You are swap God in humans in definitions, assuming that the way in which they act is equivalent. As Jared rightly pointed out, this is going into the problem of evil, not whether God can be considered pro-life.
Just as Jared pointed out, you jump "from a premise that the Christian might grant – God is responsible 'in some way' for death – to a conclusion that requires God being responsible in a specifically ethical way."
You have also set up a hypothetical (which is conveniently misrepresents what Christians believe), then declare that anyone who answers contrary to your conclusion is somehow "an immoral ass."
I suggest you stop setting up false dilemmas and ignoring distinctions made by Jared and Rhology. Since this discussion is about the God of the Bible, it is NOT special pleading to assume a biblical doctrine of God over against your assumed doctrine of God. It seems to be YOU doing the special pleading.
schnarf 2 years, 7 months ago
So if I am against the war, can I put up violent and bloody pictures of dead soldiers on the South Oval?
pearljamrun 2 years, 7 months ago
Firefly 21 I am surprised a "pro-life ambassador" would tell you this. Most are pretty conservative. While the PLAs may not have an official statement on a biological father's responsibility, I think most of this group would agree that men should love their children, meaning spending time with them, providing for them financially, etc. Whoever you spoke with was probably mis-representing the views of the PLA as a whole.
As far as scare tactics - the pictures are disgusting but they correspond to reality. The world is violent.
Nearly every member of the American society already believes that the taking of MOST innocent human life is murder. The PLA argues we should prosecute takers of ALL innocent human life. (Please note a distinction between sinful and guilty of a capital offense.) To cut to the chase, I don't think writing anti-abortion legislation respecting all human life equates to making a law respecting the establishment of the Christian or Muslim religion, as the First Amendment prohibits Congress from doing.
soonerborn88 2 years, 7 months ago
DIO "No, it is the intentional and unlawful killing of a person by another person"
So are you saying that a death is only a murder if it was planned out? What about people killed in car accidents? The driver didn't plan to go out a kill someone, but they still can get charged with murder. What about a person who snaps and kills a person with out having planned it? Are you saying these killings can't be considered murders since they aren't intentional?
Firefly21 Are you sure the person you talked to was part of pro-life ambassadors? I know that not everyone who argued the pro-life view at this event was in PLA. I can't think of anybody in the group who would give that answer. I don't think the topic of the man's responsibilty was ever discussed last year, so if a PLA member did give that answer it may have been an uninformed answer.
JimmyF 2 years, 7 months ago
There are so many typos in the first post I am going to repost the last two paragraphs:
Again one does not have to be a “one-man moral Pope” in order to shows logical flaws and fallacies in an argument. I have made no argument for any type of morality. The only thing I have implied is that morality and logic have to be consistent or we are simply talking about opinion.
I urge you grab a dictionary and look up the word hypocrisy. You will notice that there is no loop hole called justification that somehow doesn’t make you a hypocrite. Now, you can argue that somebody’s specific action (like killing a conceived person) is justified, but justification and hypocrisy are two different categories. Somebody could be justified in taking an action but still be a hypocrite. The concept of justification does not interfere with the concept of hypocrisy in any way. So try again with a different rationalization.
Rhology 2 years, 7 months ago
(cont)
--I need not commit a special pleading fallacy in my moral beliefs because certain things apply to all rational beings, where as in your ethical code you relish the special pleading fallacy.--
It's not special pleading to explain why God is justified to put anyone to DEATH. You're consistently forgetting two things: 1) Creator/creature distinction 2) The difference between murder and killing
Get your mind around those and you'll be in good shape.
And as far special pleading, I guarantee you that your morality, on your worldview and presuppositions, will contain tons of special pleading. You just haven't told us about yours yet, even though I asked you to. Let it be known this is my 2nd request.
--In the hypothetical you are a god-like figure.--
I don't see why this is useful at all, b/c I don't believe and haven't seen an argument from you that the standard for morality is independent of God's character. You yourself are performing a critique of the biblical God - what good is it to step outside that arena? I know you want to act like you're better than God, but until I see some standard for morality from you, there's no reason to think you are.
Peace, Rhology
Shanaynay 2 years, 7 months ago
"Abortionpalooza" was the name I gave to last November's despicable display on the South Oval.
THe Holocaust is NOT fodder for the pro-life movement. The genocide of a people is not equivalent to an abortion. Jews, gays, gypsies, etc. were killed simply because of what they were.
No one gets an abortion because they want to kill children. No one is pro-abortion, pro-stopping every fetus from being born.
I can't believe this debate over whether or not god is pro-life is even being discussed.
JimmyF 2 years, 7 months ago
I mean are you going to honestly believe that God can possess characteristics of A (being pro-life) and characteristics of not A (not being pro-life) at the same time? Do you realize this state of affairs is logically impossible? Do you believe God has to obey to the rules of logic? For example, can God make square circles? Can God be both good and evil? In essence what you are telling me to believe is that God can be both A and not A at the same time when you say he is pro-life. It doesn’t matter one bit logically if his position on A or not A is justified, it is still logically impossible. The only way justification matters is in your own rationalizations inside your own head, but it has no bearing logically.
I will say it again: the whole problem with your reasoning is you commit a special pleading fallacy when you try to save God from logical problems. Ignore this massive logical error all you want, but that is your problem. How the hell am I supposed to be convinced by you when you are silent on this problem? I am actually open to changing my mind if the evidence and logic is there. That is why I have been using the term rational beings so much throughout my comments. I need not commit a special pleading fallacy in my moral beliefs because certain things apply to all rational beings, where as in your ethical code you relish the special pleading fallacy.
Since you want to play word games substitute the word “sin” for “something you don’t like” and let me know what your answer is to the hypothetical. And please don’t fallaciously misquote me. I said “you don’t like” not God doesn’t like. If it is that hard to understand I will spell it out for you. In the hypothetical you are a god-like figure.