The Strongest Argument against an Omnipotent Good God?

[Marc_Anthony]

Even though abortion is undoubtedly evil we have to respect women’s right to choose. We cannot compel anyone to do what is right. All we can do is try to enlighten them and pray they will realise that allowing an unborn child to die is justified only to save the mother’s life.

Here, I disagree, and strongly.

By this logic, we should not make robberies or traditional murders illegal. We know they’re wrong, but we can’t COMPEL anybody to do what’s right, can we?

 

[Sarpedon]

Even though abortion is undoubtedly evil we have to respect women’s right to choose. We cannot compel anyone to do what is right. All we can do is try to enlighten them and pray they will realise that allowing an unborn child to die is justified only to save the mother’s life.

True, we cannot compel the will of the woman. However, we can control the outcome of that will. We can’t make the woman want or choose to be virtuous- but we can stop her from carrying out her vice.

Respect for free will does not entail an unlimited respect for the consequences of that will. The will to abort is one thing, the actual act of abortion is another.

 

[tonyrey]

True, we cannot compel the will of the woman. However, we can control the outcome of that will. We can’t make the woman want or choose to be virtuous- but we can stop her from carrying out her vice.

Respect for free will does not entail an unlimited respect for the consequences of that will. The will to abort is one thing, the actual act of abortion is another.

I pointed out that in a secular society where the majority do not regard the unborn child as a person it would be futile to attempt to attempt to impose a law curtailing a woman’s right to have an abortion. Any government in a democratic state which tried to do so would be overthrown. Nor can we stop women from having abortions because they will resort to illegal means of terminating their pregnancy.

 

[tonyrey]

Here, I disagree, and strongly.

By this logic, we should not make robberies or traditional murders illegal. We know they’re wrong, but we can’t COMPEL anybody to do what’s right, can we?

Unfortunately from the legal point of view abortion is not proscribed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and so in a secular society it is not put in the same category as murder - even though I am convinced it should be.

 

[tonyrey]

Well, that opens up new vistas of debate/discussion - but laws are legitimate when they do things like deny a person the right to choose to kill another person, or themselves - laws are sometimes the only things that keep people from engaging in certain acts - what do you think would happen if all speed limits on highways were suddenly lifted? But people should be allowed to choose how fast to go…? and pray they realize on their own before it’s too late that 100 mph is too fast to drive

The essential difference is that excessive speed endangers everyone’s lives whereas abortion deprives only unborn children of life - which, alas, does not bother the majority of people in a secular society…

 

[Sarpedon]

I pointed out that in a secular society where the majority do not regard the unborn child as a person it would be futile to attempt to attempt to impose a law curtailing a woman’s right to have an abortion. Any government in a democratic state which tried to do so would be overthrown. Nor can we stop women from having abortions because they will resort to illegal means of terminating their pregnancy.

The exact same argument could have been made about slavery in the American south. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that the UK or American government would be actually overthrown if abortion were made illegal. That would be quite dramatic, to say the least.

 

[bingbang]

I feel as though in the spiritual realm the pain and suffering that we endure in this world is not an issue.

 

[centurionguard]

I feel as though in the spiritual realm the pain and suffering that we endure in this world is not an issue.

I would beg to differ; but not from a secular standpoint.
Pain and Suffering builds spiritual character if it is embraced the way Jesus accepted it to Death of the Cross.
peterkreeft.com/topics/suffering.htm
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0032.html

 

[tonyrey]

I feel as though in the spiritual realm the pain and suffering that we endure in this world is not an issue.

Pain and suffering can certainly be transformed into a means of sanctification but not always. A small child or an animal does not understand that truth.

 

[tonyrey]

I pointed out that in a secular society where the majority do not regard the unborn child as a person it would be futile to attempt to attempt to impose a law curtailing a woman’s right to have an abortion. Any government in a democratic state which tried to do so would be overthrown. Nor can we stop women from having abortions because they will resort to illegal means of terminating their pregnancy.

The civil war was the result of the attempt to enforce the abolition of slavery and it could well have resulted in the overthrow of the government. Even after victory virtual slavery persisted until quite recently - and probably still does to some extent. I’m not arguing that the war was not justified but that slavery and abortion concern two different types of freedom. The repeal of the abortion law would result in havoc because it concerns a woman’s right to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

In the prevailing intellectual and social climate the rights of the individual are often put before more important considerations. After the success of the movement for sexual liberation it is difficult to see how the life of a mere “foetus” will be accorded legal priority over the wishes and interests of the mother. “Why should men who do not have to give birth impose their will on women?” The force of that appeal to emotion rather than reason should not be underestimated…

There are many evils in our society that cannot be outlawed because to do so would “infringe on the privacy of the individual”. The effect on children of the notion that one has “the right to choose one’s sexual orientation” is a case in point.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Unfortunately from the legal point of view abortion is not proscribed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and so in a secular society it is not put in the same category as murder - even though I am convinced it should be.

We should work to try and put it in the same category as murder.

 

[mtoddm]

We should work to try and put it in the same category as murder.

I agree - and no one is saying that swimming against the prevailing current is easy, it takes significant courage and perserverance - but if Christians don’t stand up for life in a culture of death, then no one will - and the next stage in the downward spiral will be much much worse should this go unchecked or unresisted -

—todd

catholicsojourner.blogspot.com

 

[Sarpedon]

The civil war was the result of the attempt to enforce the abolition of slavery and it could well have resulted in the overthrow of the government. Even after victory virtual slavery persisted until quite recently - and probably still does to some extent. I’m not arguing that the war was not justified but that slavery and abortion concern two different types of freedom. The repeal of the abortion law would result in havoc because it concerns a woman’s right to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

But it’s not all about her life. Under this logic, why are born babies given special status? Is it not the right of the mother to abandon her five year old child when she no longer chooses to care for him or her? Of course not. What is the difference between the example of a fetus and a five year old toddler?

You mention two different types of freedom, yet do not name them. You make reference to the “right to decide” about abortion, but what about the “right to decide” about enslaving blacks? What’s the difference?

In the prevailing intellectual and social climate the rights of the individual are often put before more important considerations. After the success of the movement for sexual liberation it is difficult to see how the life of a mere “foetus” will be accorded legal priority over the wishes and interests of the mother. “Why should men who do not have to give birth impose their will on women?” The force of that appeal to emotion rather than reason should not be underestimated…

There are many evils in our society that cannot be outlawed because to do so would “infringe on the privacy of the individual”. The effect on children of the notion that one has “the right to choose one’s sexual orientation” is a case in point.

I do not see how legal slavery and legal abortion are different in your explanation. If the justice of legal abortion resides in a respect for privacy of the mother, why cannot the justice of legal slavery reside in the privacy of the slaveowner? What about the privacy of the slave and fetus?

Privacy only goes so far, because we are not private creatures. We are social creatures, and we live in social arrangements. Therefore, our actions affect others, and especially so when we enslave others or kill others. The simple fact is that we are not private- we exist in society.

 

[tonyrey]

But it’s not all about her life. Under this logic, why are born babies given special status? Is it not the right of the mother to abandon her five year old child when she no longer chooses to care for him or her? Of course not. What is the difference between the example of a fetus and a five year old toddler?

You mention two different types of freedom, yet do not name them. You make reference to the “right to decide” about abortion, but what about the “right to decide” about enslaving blacks? What’s the difference?

I do not see how legal slavery and legal abortion are different in your explanation. If the justice of legal abortion resides in a respect for privacy of the mother, why cannot the justice of legal slavery reside in the privacy of the slaveowner? What about the privacy of the slave and fetus?

Privacy only goes so far, because we are not private creatures. We are social creatures, and we live in social arrangements. Therefore, our actions affect others, and especially so when we enslave others or kill others. The simple fact is that we are not private- we exist in society.

You are preaching to the converted! I pointed out that in the prevailing intellectual and social climate the rights of the individual are often put before more important considerations such as the life of a mere “foetus” and that there are many evils in our society that cannot be outlawed because to do so would “infringe on the privacy of the individual”.

 

[Sarpedon]

You are preaching to the converted! I pointed out that in the prevailing intellectual and social climate the rights of the individual are often put before more important considerations such as the life of a mere “foetus” and that there are many evils in our society that cannot be outlawed because to do so would “infringe on the privacy of the individual”.

OK, I was under the impression that you were arguing that abortion is morally wrong but that it should be left to the discretion of the woman due to privacy.