Theological Implications of Right to Lifers

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Again, not that I can see.

Well, wouldn't it be better, all things considered, for God to provide for the continued growth of embryos, aborted fetuses, etc.? After all, that would allow them to eventually opt to either enter into the sort of personal relationship with Him that He seems to find valuable or to opt out of such a relationship (a choice that He seems to think it is bad to prevent persons from having).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No it doesn't. Your question is analogous to my asking why I should be denied a share in Bill Gates' $42bn personal net worth.

For your question to make sense, you must show first that an unborn child (or any human being, in general) is entitled to make it to Heaven. Without doing that, talk of Heaven being "denied" is misleading.

Don't even try arguing economics with me, lu. I will smoke you faster than a priest at Boy Scouts.

The reason my question makes more sense is that, unlike with your naive Bill Gates analogy, these zygotes' souls can be admitted to heaven, increasing the happiness of these unfortunates, without diminishing the happiness of anyone else, including God. If you need it couched in economic terms, then your arrangement is not Pareto Efficient, and allowing zygotes into heaven is Pareto improving. If you cannot recognize the fundamental differences between stealing income from Bill Gates and permitting billions of souls who never had a shot at life to live in heaven then my esteem for your intellect was poorly allocated. Go read up on the first and second welfare theorems of economics.

Let me be extra clear. I'm not saying that these souls are entitled to heaven. I'm saying that given that their happiness can be increased to the highest possible level (heaven) without diminishing the happiness of anyone else, it makes the sense to allow them into heaven.

Of course, you are free to make up limbo states between heaven and hell if you just can't suffer the little children to come unto you.

Originally posted by bbarr
The responses of a plant are self-directed only in that causal forces acting upon the plant result in responses that themselves depend upon the internal structure of the plant. This is the same with the thermometer.

However, both human consciousness and plant/animal responses to stimuli have a purpose/function oriented towards the organism itself. Yes, it depends on the internal physical/chemical composition and structure of the organism. But that does not take away from the fact that it is qualitatively different from the thermal expansion of mercury in a thermometer.

Now, if you had a living being with mercury flowing through its "veins", then you would have a different story...

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, wouldn't it be better, all things considered, for God to provide for the continued growth of embryos, aborted fetuses, etc.? After all, that would allow them to eventually opt to either enter into the sort of personal relationship with Him that He seems to find valuable or to opt out of such a relationship (a choice that He seems to think it is bad to prevent persons from having)?

All creatures are of value to God on some degree or other.

All is seen and all will be present for Judgment day. Not an atom weight of matter will be forgotten.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
However, both human consciousness and plant/animal responses to stimuli have a purpose/function oriented towards the organism itself. Yes, it depends on the internal physical/chemical composition and structure of the organism. But that does not take away from the fact that it is qualitatively different from the thermal expansion of mercury in a thermo ...[text shortened]... iving being with mercury flowing through its "veins", then you would have a different story...

So, suppose I outfit the thermometer with a device that checks to see if the device is operating properly (checks to see if the right amount of mercury is in the tube, and that the tube is structurally sound, and...). Would the diagnostic responses of the super-thermometer be considered 'conscious'? After all, they are self-oriented, and their purpose is the proper functioning of the device itself.

Originally posted by Peachy
All creatures are of value to God on some degree or other.

All is seen and all will be present for Judgment day. Not an atom weight of matter will be forgotten.

Thanks for the pablum.

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, wouldn't it be better, all things considered, for God to provide for the continued growth of embryos, aborted fetuses, etc.? After all, that would allow them to eventually opt to either enter into the sort of personal relationship with Him that He seems to find valuable or to opt out of such a relationship (a choice that He seems to think it is bad to prevent persons from having).

It might very well be. After all, there are many theologians (Ratzinger included) who want to do away with the concept of limbo altogether.

That said, Heaven and Hell as permanent states of the human soul only makes sense to me if human death also represents the end of human free will (to choose good or evil). If so, then the death of the unborn child should mean it is no longer able to choose either way. In that case, letting it remain in its current state would actually be the most merciful option because only a being with an intellect can feel or understand the loss of the Beatific Vision.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It might very well be. After all, there are many theologians (Ratzinger included) who want to do away with the concept of limbo altogether.

That said, Heaven and Hell as permanent states of the human soul only makes sense to me if human death also represents the end of human free will (to choose good or evil). If so, then the death of the unborn ch ...[text shortened]... n because only a being with an intellect can feel or understand the loss of the Beatific Vision.

If Ratzinger and his ilk did away with the limbo, would you argue that limbo never existed?

Originally posted by telerion
Don't even try arguing economics with me, lu. I will smoke you faster than a priest at Boy Scouts.

The reason my question makes more sense is that, unlike with your naive Bill Gates analogy, these zygotes' souls can be admitted to heaven, increasing the happiness of these unfortunates, without diminishing the happiness of anyone else, including God. ...[text shortened]... ates between heaven and hell if you just can't suffer the little children to come unto you.

I've left my copy of Samuelson at home, so you'll have to pardon my ignoring your economics lecture. Nevertheless, unless my Economics 101 memory is seriously impaired, isn't it the case that Pareto optimality can only be applied to allocations that are actually achievable?

Admitting souls into Heaven is not a simple matter of opening up a door and pushing them in. They must already be in a state of sanctifying grace which, in turn, [usually] requires human action (since it was human action that deprived us of sanctifying grace in the first place). Since the zygotes' souls are not in a state of sanctifying grace, they cannot "enter" Heaven.

A person who is completely blind from birth cannot see. If that person is not aware of the existence of such a sense, he can't really miss it either.

Originally posted by telerion
If Ratzinger and his ilk did away with the limbo, would you argue that limbo never existed?

If Pope Benedict teaches the non-existence of limbo then, yes, I will change my mind on this.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I've left my copy of Samuelson at home, so you'll have to pardon my ignoring your economics lecture. Nevertheless, unless my Economics 101 memory is seriously impaired, isn't it the case that Pareto optimality can only be applied to allocations that are actually achievable?

Admitting souls into Heaven is not a simple matter of opening up a d ...[text shortened]... hat person is not aware of the existence of such a sense, he can't really miss it either.

So, can't God give zygotes a chance to achieve sanctifying grace by, say, outfitting them with the necessary faculties of reason and volition? This can't be a logical impossibility. So, there is still an allocation that Pareto dominates yours.

Originally posted by bbarr
So, can't God give zygotes a chance to achieve sanctifying grace by, say, outfitting them with the necessary faculties of reason and volition?

That He can and does so are what some of the afore-mentioned theologians are arguing.

EDIT: The question I would wonder about is whether such an action on God's part violates the moral autonomy of the human race (e.g. with original sin). If that is the case, then I would think that God cannot do so (even if He wanted to).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I've left my copy of Samuelson at home, so you'll have to pardon my ignoring your economics lecture. Nevertheless, unless my Economics 101 memory is seriously impaired, isn't it the case that Pareto optimality can only be applied to allocations that are actually achievable?

Admitting souls into Heaven is not a simple matter of opening up a d ...[text shortened]... hat person is not aware of the existence of such a sense, he can't really miss it either.

Quit prattling about Samuelson. You sound like a moron when you do.

My my. All these rules that tie your god's hands. I didn't realize he was such a wuss. "Oh, I would jump into the lake, but you see I wrote this rule that says I cannot. Oh, I would let some more souls into heaven, but I wrote this rule that says . . ."

I always thought god was unconstrained and therefore allowing aborted zygotes into heaven is possible. I wonder who is so mighty as to constrained God? It seems the answer is you and your Pope.

Besides it not a stretch for the omnipotent Creator to give these zygotes a choice to enter into a state of "sanctifying grace" (BS, though it is). God just has to ask them. Hell, he could even just right in a loophole (as you Catholics have made a profession of doing). Seems to me that he never gave them a chance. Not that I'm saying they deserve a chance, cuz you Catholics know that nobody deserves crap, especially not wee little babies.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That He can and does so are what some of the afore-mentioned theologians are arguing.

Now that's more sensible, assuming such an adjective can be applied within this ridiculous theology.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That He can and does so are what some of the afore-mentioned theologians are arguing.

Fair enough.