Question of the Week: Are Aborted Children Better Off In Heaven From A Christian Perspective?
Those who argue in favor of abortion do so because of a fundamental disagreement about what life is. Due to the fact that the Christian worldview does not allow their perspective regarding human identity after birth, many have attempted to reach over from our perspective in order to justify the act of purposely ending a baby’s life. The argument is usually phrased in a way similar to this; If God isn’t going to judge people to be separated from Him forever when they never had an opportunity to receive or reject Him, (or something along the lines of the Age of Accountability providing salvation to those too young to come to a decision on the matter), then aren’t those who abort their children simply sending those kids to Heaven? If Heaven is better than this life, then isn’t the act of aborting children better from a Christian perspective? They never had to suffer, experience pain, and only ever knew life present with Jesus. This is the argument point by point;
Premise 1: Children who die young go to Heaven. (Genesis 18:25)
Premise 2: Heaven is better than this World. (Philippians 1:23)
Conclusion: Causing the deaths of children is good because it sends them to Heaven. (Psalm 116:15)
Hopefully hearing these things out loud reveals to most just how horrific a claim it actually is. While modern culture has prided itself on indifference to most issues, the only reason most subscribe to this kind of thinking is hopefully because they haven’t fully thought the issue through. In the face of unfiltered and unapologetic evil, it’s best to not meet irrationality with more irrationality. Like any other claim about anything, they should be tested according to their own standards as well as the worldview they claim to be challenging. Is this a rational conclusion from a Biblical perspective, or is it just as Satanic as it sounds?
Problem #1: The Ends Justify the Means?
The first part of this argument that needs to be challenged is the fact that it’s based on a fallacy. The claim that “The Ends Justify the Means” is rejected in the realm of rational thought because of just how far it can be abused. People who justify their actions by claiming they meant well or are doing it in the name of a greater good are making the assumption that their reprehensible actions will, in fact, produce their intended outcome. People assumed at a certain point in history that the elimination of rights for certain groups of people were justified because it would produce a perfect society. They were not only wrong, but caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the process of a misguided goal. When applying this to abortion, there’s too many false assumptions that conflict with both parties interests in this conversation. Those who support abortion are in conflict with the Bible’s claims about this life and the afterlife. To justify your position with an outcome you fundamentally deny is insincere at best, and deceptive at worst. It’s not an end they acknowledge. People who argue this way demonstrate that they are simply indifferent about the death of a child. This is why the majority of those who argue in favor of abortion have to focus on the definition of life and the identity of the unborn as worthy of less rights than those who are born. Anything apart from the dehumanization of others puts them in a dilemma. Either they’re acknowledging the fact they are supporting the deaths of the innocent, or are proving they could care less about the outcome of their actions.
Problem #2: Why stop at Children?
The second problem this argument fails to take into consideration isn’t just the indifference it reveals about its speaker, but exactly why its conclusion is limited to children. If the conclusion is that causing the deaths of children are a good thing because it sends them to Heaven, why would that not apply to humanity in any other age group? Causing the deaths of young children would be a good thing as well because it spares them the pain and suffering that come with puberty, bills, and the stresses of later life. The deaths of teenagers would be seen as a good thing because it spares them the heartache of failed relationships and the anxiety that comes with the future. The deaths of adults would be seen as a good thing because it spares them the suffering that comes with old age. The deaths of the elderly would be seen as a good thing because it spares them a difficult transition into Heaven. If your system can be used to justify the extermination of the human race in any scenario, you either need to rethink your position or have yourself admitted for serious psychiatric evaluation. The potential for suffering is no excuse to end a human life.
Problem #3: What is the Christian Perspective?
The third problem with this argument is that it fundamentally misrepresents the worldview it’s claiming to meet halfway. Normally it’s a reasonable approach to argue your conclusion from the perspective that’s contrary to it. If you can demonstrate that we both agree on the fundamentals, then there ends up being no disagreement with what both people are saying. The only problem is when one or both views aren’t actually what’s being explained, you end up creating a whole new disagreement in addition to what the first argument was about in the first place. If the person you’re talking to won’t even let you explain what you believe, then they have demonstrated they’re not there to argue. They’re merely dictating and enforcing their own ideas onto you. Then when you refuse to fit yourself into their box, they shame you for not being what you weren’t to begin with. That’s not how reasonable conversations happen.
The Christian perspective in regard to life is as follows;
- Jesus of Nazareth is the example Christians consider following as the standard for right and wrong.
Imitate me as I imitate Christ.
1 Corinthians 11:1 (NKJV)
- Jesus of Nazareth lived the perfect life according to God’s standard.
For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: “Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;
1 Peter 2:20-22 (NKJV)
- Jesus of Nazareth didn’t distance Himself from our suffering, but voluntarily became a part of it.
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
1 Peter 3:18 (NKJV)
- Jesus of Nazareth never justified the death/murder of anyone by claiming it would prevent them from suffering. In fact, just the opposite. He predicted the suffering of His followers and prayed they would be preserved through it.
I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
John 17:15 (NKJV)
The Christian perspective is not indifferent towards the intentional ending of someone’s life, regardless of age. The Christian perspective does not justify murder in order to prevent potential suffering. The Christian perspective is based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, not the summations of people who don’t believe His claims about life before and after birth.
A Reason For Hope is a ministry of Calvary Christian Fellowship of Tucson
Listen: Monday – Friday 5-6pm, on 106.3FM Reach Radio
Email your questions:
Follow on CCF Facebook: facebook.com/ccftucson
Watch our Frequently Asked Questions on YouTube.
