Jesus Christ is Sovereign. We only have to do our job, which doesn’t include abortion or murder. During our few years on earth, we have one business only: to live in and share God’s love, holiness and righteousness.

To make death a savior, yes to make killing a savior, is so expressly anti-Christ. It would nicely fit in with the ideas of rebel leader Joseph Kony of Uganda. No, Jesus saves, here and hereafter. But if, perhaps, you have in mind “hell on earth”, no still I do not agree. For that reason Christ is putting His church on earth, so that we may reach out and care and bring hope to those who are having ‘hell on earth’.

A pastor with a pastor’s heart from Africa.

Thank you this background information about what certain others believe. I don’t expect everyone to be convinced that God doesn’t send unborn babies to hell, or that hell is a really bad place. There will of course also be many who deny hell altogether. With these I do not try to argue. I would only say a few words.

The scriptures characterize hell as a place of eternal suffering and separation from God. Meditate on the key terms: “eternal”, “suffering”, and “separation from God.”

Anyone, therefore, who maintains that God condemns unborn babies to hell therefore believes that either that God is unjust, or that unborn babies deserve eternal suffering in hell. In opposing abortion, most people believe that unborn babies do not deserve bodily dismemberment. But these “Reformed Calvinists,” as you have described them, believe that unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.

Additionally, the connection of white racists and abortion, them being best friends, is intriguing. The high totals of abortion in the black community is evidence of systemic, under the radar, incognito racism that remains in our society. Those who care about such injustices should speak out and work for justice in our culture now.

You make some assumptions others may not be so quick to make. Reformed Calvinists, embracing limited atonement, would disagree with your statement regarding abortion, that “it saves ALL of its direct victims from the risk of hell.” Holding to limited atonement – that Christ didn’t die for all, that he died only for the elect – they’d say that many of these innocents will perish, and if born would have perished by virtue that they are not elect.

The early Fathers wrestled with this, not in regard to election, but in light of original sin. Augustine in particular wrote more than a few statements on the matter. Here’s one that’s typical.

Who can doubt that infants who are not baptized, and who have only original sin unaggravated by any personal sin of their own, will be given the lightest condemnation of all? Although I am not able to define the kind and degree of their punishment, I still do not dare to say it were better for them never to have existed at all than to exist there.

So, how can you confidently say that abortion… is very much in unborn baby’s interest?

The Catholic Church agrees with you in principle though, and its catechism states, As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

I don’t believe so. Abortion is a sin despite the fact that it is in the best interest of the unborn. One doesn’t determine the moral permissibility of an action, nor its sinfulness, merely by assessing its consequences.

You write, “By being aborted, they didn’t get the chance to sully their spirits with things of the flesh. Our earthly journeys are part of God’s plan. Our sufferings and struggles are how we become more Christ like, and our failures are how we experience God’s mercy.”

All of this is true. However, what makes it the case that abortion is in the best interest of the unborn hasn’t so much to do with avoiding “the chance to sully their spirits.” It has rather to do with avoiding eternal suffering in hell, and eternal separation from God. You rightly note that the unborn baby won’t get the chance to be the object of God’s forgiveness. However, wanting this sort thing is odd: it’s like wanting to sin against your spouse so that your spouse can later forgive you. That is perverse. Moreover, it is probably quite good to trade the chance to be forgiven in order to avoid the chance of being eternally condemned. Eternal condemnation in hell is no small matter.

Though abortion is sinful, it is very much in unborn baby’s best interest.

That is a terrific response to this question.

It is said that every heresy is an attack on the Incarnation, for each heresy will tend too far either toward Jesus’ nature as man or his divine nature. I find myself looking to the Incarnation when sorting out certain things. In this case, I see that the Incarnation, the perfect union of flesh and Spirit, pleased the Father greatly. Those who pronounce they are “walking in the Spirit” while demeaning that which is their human side are missing the point. In this light, I think your position is one of retreating into that which says, “Oh well, they are better off dead anyway. By being aborted, they didn’t get the chance to sully their spirits with things of the flesh.” Our earthly journeys are part of God’s plan. Our sufferings and struggles are how we become more Christ like, and our failures are how we experience God’s mercy. So, to ask “for what in this life would you risk eternal separation from God?” is a question that is misplaced. Christ became like us that we might become like Him. He reaches out to us in our fallen, broken nature. Your logic might have me say that I won’t give to a charity that feeds the starving in Ethiopia because the toddler, who isn’t yet sufficiently self-aware so as to commit personal sin, would be better off dying before adolescence where they might actually commit a sin. Would we praise God that he allowed them to starve to death? Should we facilitiate the demise of all who haven’t reached the age of reason? To embrace Christ is to embrace in flesh and spirit that which delights the Father. Yes, God is merciful and our expectation is that these innocents will be with Him. However, I find no solace in this and imagine that this grieves Christ.

I believe this conclusion follows from some rather plausible premises, namely that (a) God doesn’t condemn unborn babies to hell, and (b) adults who don’t come to faith in Christ are condemned to hell.

If these premises are true, then it is almost certain that abortion has saved some from hell. Hundreds of millions of babies have been aborted. It is implausible to think that, had they not been aborted, each one of them would have either died before adulthood anyways or come to faith in Christ.

You might think that it is not in the best interest of the unborn to avoid the risk of hell. But here’s what I’d then ask: for what in this life would you risk eternal separation from God?