Seems to me a gross misrepresentation.

Klusendorf believes that unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment–that they deserve to be punished and to suffer for all eternity.

How does one respond to this? What would one say to a man who believes that infant children deserve to be tortured and mutilated? What does it say about the current state of the pro-life movement when one of its prominent leaders believes stuff like this?

One of the values of these threads is that they allow for conversation and interaction. For the learning experience of us all, I’d therefore encourage you post follow up comments.

The point you make about the argument applying to Christians (adults, let’s say) has several flaws. First, one simply doesn’t know which professing Christians are in fact washed in the blood of the Lamb. Secondly, the case of adults is further complicated by their other interests they have developed. To snatch them midstream from their life projects and relationships may seriously conflict with serious interests of theirs. Now these interests may not override the interest they have in avoiding the risk of eternal suffering, but we’ve already seen why we can’t even be sure of the death of any adult ensuring that. Finally, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable to admit the possibility of the unknowable fact that the sudden death of a person is in fact, in some circumstances, in her interest. (Assume, for example, the unknowable fact that, had she lived another day, she would have lost her faith in Christ.)

As for the other considerations you raise, perhaps they would be clearer (or more clearly relevant) if you referenced the actual argument (which is numbered in order to facilitate such referencing).

blessings,
Janice

This will be my one and only comment here so take it for what it is worth and move on. It seems your point frames the discussion in the consequences of a real heaven and a real hell. So your list directly addresses only the Christian world view. But in that world view hell is not just a punishment to be avoided but everlasting life in relation to God is something to be cherished. In that light your list does not make the killing of unborn humans a unique scenario where it is ultimately in your words “in the interest of the victim.” No matter how good any day here in this life is it will pale in comparison to being in the presence of God. So killing any Christian is also in the interest of the victim as it releases them from this world allows them to be free of the struggles associated with this age. In fact, in the frame of beliefs that your list addresses I could conceive of a few instances where we could conceivably say that killing or murdering person A will be in their interest in some form or another. So the point becomes a little less specific and almost trivial. It proves too much.

But however you calculate the ultimate full interest of any victim or potential victim, a consequentialist or utilitarian exercise that requires a far greater and more informed point of view than any human has the capacity to fully grasp, you acknowledge that it fails to justify the action by the killer or murderer in question. So again, your point seems less than devastating.

God bless,
Jay Watts

There are several ways to answer you question about premise #1. You might consider it the case that, if we know anything, we know that an unborn baby does not deserve to be dismembered. (We also know that an unborn baby does not deserve a Nobel Prize.) From that you might infer that an unborn baby does not deserve worse than dismemberment. Alternatively, you might consider it a foundational fact about desert that a person does not deserve to be punished for something that he/she did not do and couldn’t have avoided. Or, you might assume the opposite and see the sorts of absurdities the falsehood of premise #1 implies (if the falsehood of premise #1 isn’t itself obviously absurd). You also might put yourself in the situation of such a unborn baby (this is like when we ask a middle schooler to put himself in the situation of the boy he just teased, so that he might understand why what he did was wrong or unfair):

Here would be the sum total of your experience. At your own mother’s request, you are violently ripped from her womb, some of your limbs severed. Unwanted, you are then discarded and left to die in the hospital refuse, to be taken out with the hazardous waste. You die, but only to awake in the presence of God, who views you as an abomination. Being informed that you are worthy of eternal condemnation, you spend eternity suffering in hell. (Seriously, try to imagine this.)

Now, as for you other questions, answered in order:

If abortion is by some other means, just replace “dismemberment” with that other means, or simply with “abortion”. Nothing really hangs on that.

The same argument presumably applies to infants, and with decreasing certainty to older children.

I suppose it might be natural for a mother to wish this. Hell is a terrible place, and one can sympathize with her love. There are certainly worse things to wish. Still, one might conceivable say that she is thus wishing for something that would have conflicted with the revealed will of God–that she not murder. One might then that there is something sinful in such a wish. Still, it’d be understandable; perhaps even beyond blame (but these are trickier distinctions).

How do you know premise 1? What if an abortion is not by dismemberment? Can you substitute 10 year olds for “unborn babies” in premise 1? How about 15 year olds?
If abortion is in the best interest of babies, is fine for a mother to wish she aborted her dead son since he rejected Jesus Christ and never believed when he got older?

Matt

(a) The wrath of God is upon unborn babies.

(b) Unborn babies deserve far worse than bodily dismemberment.

(c) Unborn babies deserve to suffer eternally for things they neither did nor could have avoided.